# I will not Bow!



## pbel

*People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*



Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP)  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sent a defiant message to Israel's leadership and U.S. mediators Saturday, telling cheering supporters that the Palestinians "won't kneel" and won't drop demands for a capital in east Jerusalem.







Related Stories


Kerry sees progress on Israeli-Palestinian framework deal Reuters 
Kerry heads to Middle East next week for peace talks: U.S. official Reuters 
Kerry says progress in peace talks but more work needed AFP 
Analysis: Israel, Palestinians face hard choices Associated Press 
Kerry ends Mideast trip without framework deal AFP 

Abbas' unusually fiery speech highlighted the wide gaps between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the outlines of a peace deal. It also raised new doubts about the chances of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to bridge those gaps in coming weeks and come up with a framework for an agreement.

Abbas adopted tough positions in the wide-ranging speech, saying that "there will be no peace" without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

He also suggested he would not continue negotiations beyond a U.S.-set target date of the end of April, and instead will resume his quest for broader international recognition of a state of Palestine by the United Nations and its various agencies.


----------



## Bloodrock44

That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.


----------



## pbel

Bloodrock44 said:


> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.



They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.


----------



## MHunterB

The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.

Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.

Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some fantasy of the 'noble savage' .......

The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.



Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
Click to expand...



Really,  Pbel, I think by now the readers realize you are not interested in the Arabs as a whole so of course you are not interested even in the Arabs killing each other.  Can you tell us how people are nobel when they send in people as suicide bombers and then treat these suicide bombers as celebrities?  Did you know what Abbas thesis is, Pbel?  I believe is was denial of the Holocaust.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really,  Pbel, I think by now the readers realize you are not interested in the Arabs as a whole so of course you are not interested even in the Arabs killing each other.  Can you tell us how people are nobel when they send in people as suicide bombers and then treat these suicide bombers as celebrities?  Did you know what Abbas thesis is, Pbel?  I believe is was denial of the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

Lying again....

Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism

The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis, completed in 1982 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1984 it was published as a book in Arabic titled "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya).

*The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[*12][62] Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[65][66]
Through Secret Channels (1995) Memoirs of the Oslo agreement


----------



## JakeStarkey

An Israeli unilateral and enforced two-state solution with Israeli maintaining security provisions in Palestine.

No right of return.

No removal of the wall.

No Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.


----------



## MHunterB

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
Click to expand...


MY 'illiteracy'??????  How absurd.  YOU are the one who's fantasizing about the Palestinians, not I.  And I notice you studiously avoided replying to the facts about the way certain 'Palestinians' treated Jerusalem while they had control over her : ((


----------



## MHunterB

Oh, isn't that cute - Abbas' 'dissertation' was indeed Holocaust denial:

The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[12][62] *Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[*65][66]


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> Oh, isn't that cute - Abbas' 'dissertation' was indeed Holocaust denial:
> 
> The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[12][62] *Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[*65][66]


Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was agreed to by the German government in 1933 to allow the Zionist movement, in the form of the Haavara company to transfer property from Germany to Palestine, for the sole purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany. The Haavara company operated under a similar plan as the earlier Hanotea company. The Haavara Company required immigrants to pay at least 1000 pounds sterling into the banking company. This money would then be used to buy German exports for import to Palestine.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among certain circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed "Jewish problem." The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Von Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier.[5] Hitler's support of the Haavara Agreement varied throughout the thirties. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but shortly reversed his opinion, and continued to support it, in the face of opposition, through 1939.[6]

After the invasion of Poland and the onset of World War II in 1939, the practical continuation of the Haavara agreement became impossible. In 1940, representatives of the underground Zionist group Lehi met with von Hentig to propose direct military cooperation with the Nazis for the continuation of the transfer of European Jews to Palestine.[7] This proposal, however, did not produce results.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,  Pbel, I think by now the readers realize you are not interested in the Arabs as a whole so of course you are not interested even in the Arabs killing each other.  Can you tell us how people are nobel when they send in people as suicide bombers and then treat these suicide bombers as celebrities?  Did you know what Abbas thesis is, Pbel?  I believe is was denial of the Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying again....
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism
> 
> The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis, completed in 1982 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1984 it was published as a book in Arabic titled "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya).
> 
> *The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[*12][62] Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[65][66]
> Through Secret Channels (1995) Memoirs of the Oslo agreement
Click to expand...


Perhaps, Pbel, you should have your good friend Abbas take a look at Edwin Black and what he has to say.

EDWIN BLACK ON C-SPAN: THE FARHUD: THE ROOTS OF THE ARAB-NAZI ALLIANCE DURING WWII??. |


----------



## MHunterB

Sally, you noticed that he hasn't replied to the words he initially quoted which discussed the charges of Holocaust denial leveled at Abbas for his 'work'.   I wonder why not?


----------



## Sally

JakeStarkey said:


> An Israeli unilateral and enforced two-state solution with Israeli maintaining security provisions in Palestine.
> 
> No right of return.
> 
> No removal of the wall.
> 
> No Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.



Listen, Jake, Pbel has been salivating for years over a one-state solution.  He has posted his "demographics" shtick for years on end that he by now has probably mentioned it over a thousand times.  He is anxious for the Arabs to begin their takeover of the land so that once again it will be rulled by Muslims and the Christians and the Jews will become their dhimmis.  He has no interest at all with what is happening in the rest of the Middle East or elsewhere in the Muslim world, even though each day innocent people are being killed by extremist Muslims.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, isn't that cute - Abbas' 'dissertation' was indeed Holocaust denial:
> 
> The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[12][62] *Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[*65][66]
> 
> 
> 
> Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was agreed to by the German government in 1933 to allow the Zionist movement, in the form of the Haavara company to transfer property from Germany to Palestine, for the sole purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany. The Haavara company operated under a similar plan as the earlier Hanotea company. The Haavara Company required immigrants to pay at least 1000 pounds sterling into the banking company. This money would then be used to buy German exports for import to Palestine.
> 
> The Haavara Agreement was thought among certain circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed "Jewish problem." The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Von Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier.[5] Hitler's support of the Haavara Agreement varied throughout the thirties. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but shortly reversed his opinion, and continued to support it, in the face of opposition, through 1939.[6]
> 
> After the invasion of Poland and the onset of World War II in 1939, the practical continuation of the Haavara agreement became impossible. In 1940, representatives of the underground Zionist group Lehi met with von Hentig to propose direct military cooperation with the Nazis for the continuation of the transfer of European Jews to Palestine.[7] This proposal, however, did not produce results.
Click to expand...


I think Pbel is annoyed that a plan was made to save some Jews.  He would much rather have had them end up in the concentration camp where they had a good chance of being killed.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
Click to expand...




 Hardly as very soon the filastins will run out of places to build new homes and they will have to move to the empty quarter.  Until they stop thinking they are the top dogs they will get nowhere and just see more of their demands get denied


----------



## rhodescholar

pbel said:


> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.



Thank you for exposing that the intolerant, racist arab muslims believe they can "conquer" Israel through means other than war - like the mexicans in the US - so they have no reason in their minds to negotiate in good faith, thanks for clarifying.

What then is the incentive for Israel to not expel or deport all/most of them out of the country, like Azerbaijan did in the 1990s?

That country deported all of its muslims, suffered a few years of hypocritical sanctions which ended, and is now doing quite well.


----------



## Lipush

They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.

They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.

Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP)  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sent a defiant message to Israel's leadership and U.S. mediators Saturday, telling cheering supporters that the Palestinians "won't kneel" and won't drop demands for a capital in east Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Related Stories
> 
> 
> Kerry sees progress on Israeli-Palestinian framework deal Reuters
> Kerry heads to Middle East next week for peace talks: U.S. official Reuters
> Kerry says progress in peace talks but more work needed AFP
> Analysis: Israel, Palestinians face hard choices Associated Press
> Kerry ends Mideast trip without framework deal AFP
> 
> Abbas' unusually fiery speech highlighted the wide gaps between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the outlines of a peace deal. It also raised new doubts about the chances of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to bridge those gaps in coming weeks and come up with a framework for an agreement.
> 
> Abbas adopted tough positions in the wide-ranging speech, saying that "there will be no peace" without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> He also suggested he would not continue negotiations beyond a U.S.-set target date of the end of April, and instead will resume his quest for broader international recognition of a state of Palestine by the United Nations and its various agencies.






I say then give him abu dis as his new capital, it is east of Jerusalem. Then tell him to get the two carbuncles of the temple mount so the Jews can rebuild the Temple as prophesised in the Bible and Koran.


----------



## Coyote

Lipush said:


> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?



States and identity are not solely tied to religion.

Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.

They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.

Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.


----------



## toastman

Coyote said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
Click to expand...


Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him. 

Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided. 

No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis


----------



## Coyote

toastman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> *
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided. *
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
Click to expand...


I'm not sure yet how "clear" it is or whether it's a stage in the process of negotiating.


----------



## Coyote

@Rocco and I had a good discussion in a thread on how the issues could be resolved and land swapped etc to achieve peace.  Wish I could find it - haven't seen Rocco in a while but his arguments and positions on this were good.


----------



## Truthseeker420

pbel said:


> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP)  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sent a defiant message to Israel's leadership and U.S. mediators Saturday, telling cheering supporters that the Palestinians "won't kneel" and won't drop demands for a capital in east Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Related Stories
> 
> 
> Kerry sees progress on Israeli-Palestinian framework deal Reuters
> Kerry heads to Middle East next week for peace talks: U.S. official Reuters
> Kerry says progress in peace talks but more work needed AFP
> Analysis: Israel, Palestinians face hard choices Associated Press
> Kerry ends Mideast trip without framework deal AFP
> 
> Abbas' unusually fiery speech highlighted the wide gaps between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the outlines of a peace deal. It also raised new doubts about the chances of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to bridge those gaps in coming weeks and come up with a framework for an agreement.
> 
> Abbas adopted tough positions in the wide-ranging speech, saying that "there will be no peace" without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> He also suggested he would not continue negotiations beyond a U.S.-set target date of the end of April, and instead will resume his quest for broader international recognition of a state of Palestine by the United Nations and its various agencies.



You see where concession got Native Americans. No Justice No Peace !


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.

The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
Click to expand...


I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
Click to expand...


Good luck to them, because they certainly are going to need it !!


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
Click to expand...


No, they can't...







The Palestinians are running out of time...

There will be no one-state solution that includes the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank...

The Israelis will end-up controlling those lands...

The Palestinians own propaganda maps tell us this...

It's just that the present occupants of those lands will, by then, be residing within the borders of present-day Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
Click to expand...




 This shows that you don't have the first clue on what the filastins really want, it is there in the words they speak and in their charter. They want the Jews enslaved as they were pre 1948 and the land back in muslim hands. No uproar and violence when a muslim outsider was given the land of Jordan, or the land of Syria the displaced muslims just moved on to the next place looking for work. In 1921 the then Islamic leader of the area agreed with the British government to accept a Jewish homeland in Palestine along with 2 new muslim states. The moves were made and the 2 muslim states were formed to clear the way for the Jews, then WW2 broke out and the muslims sided with the axis powers in the hope of stealing the land destined for the Jews. The axis powers lost and the muslims decided to create problems for the British by having riots and attacking Jewish areas. The British still reeling after the war did not have the manpower or money to fight a protracted police action so they offered the muslims half of what was originally detined for the Jews. The UN was formed and they ratified the British deal and so paved the way for a Jewish state. Knowing that Britain was impoverished by the war the muslims demanded all the land and caused Britain to give up their mandate leaving the mess in the hands of the UN. That is when the real troubles began as the UN should have sent in a fully armed attack group to halt the arab league by over running their armies and neutralising their sting. Putting embargo's and blockades on the arab nations until they signed a pledge to live in peace or face the wrath of the UN. Now it is too late and the turmoil in the M.E. will only be halted by an all out war between the various Islamic factions and the west


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they can't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are running out of time...
> 
> There will be no one-state solution that includes the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank...
> 
> The Israelis will end-up controlling those lands...
> 
> The Palestinians own propaganda maps tell us this...
> 
> It's just that the present occupants of those lands will, by then, be residing within the borders of present-day Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt...
Click to expand...




 Your maps are wrong as the one for 1949 to 1967 shows the post 1967 state of affairs, while the 1947 map is the one that should be in its place.


----------



## Lipush

Coyote said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
Click to expand...


There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.

There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.

The right to exist as a people is something that was offered to them in 1948. But they chose to see it that this right means that WE cannot exist as a people.

They opened a war to "establish" this right for identity, which means the destruction of ours.

They have lost.

They don't have a state today simply because we insist on existing.

That is why we're hated. For existing.

If it's us existing or them, we chose us.

Once it stops being "or", a game they have started, they'll win justice.

But as long as they insist on destroying us, they'll live with sorrow.

It's very simple.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are united behind the saying of "Itbah Al Yahud".

they don't want peace.


----------



## Kondor3

Lipush said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are united behind the saying of "Itbah Al Yahud".
> 
> they don't want peace.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

They do, indeed, want peace.

The kind that would prevail after all the Jews of Israel were slaughtered or driven-out or conquered and dominated, and after the State of Israel is destroyed.

The kind the Palestinians are going to get unless the Jews of Israel deal firmly with the Gazans and West Bankers.


----------



## pbel

rhodescholar said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exposing that the intolerant, racist arab muslims believe they can "conquer" Israel through means other than war - like the mexicans in the US - so they have no reason in their minds to negotiate in good faith, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> What then is the incentive for Israel to not expel or deport all/most of them out of the country, like Azerbaijan did in the 1990s?
> 
> That country deported all of its muslims, suffered a few years of hypocritical sanctions which ended, and is now doing quite well.
Click to expand...


My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...

Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.
Click to expand...


It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
Click to expand...




 The filastins wont accept a shared capital, with them it is all or nothing. Leave them another 2 or 3 years and they will start to die out due to overcrowding, disease, starvation and infighting. If they want war then let them declare war and show the world that it is them being intransigent and belligerent. At the end of the day Jerusalem was 60% Jewish owned in 1948 before the arab armies tried genocide instead of talking


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
Click to expand...


Then it's war forever, I guess.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exposing that the intolerant, racist arab muslims believe they can "conquer" Israel through means other than war - like the mexicans in the US - so they have no reason in their minds to negotiate in good faith, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> What then is the incentive for Israel to not expel or deport all/most of them out of the country, like Azerbaijan did in the 1990s?
> 
> That country deported all of its muslims, suffered a few years of hypocritical sanctions which ended, and is now doing quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...
> 
> Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.
Click to expand...


Israel/Palestine is part of an area of Asia called the Middle East.  It's not part of the peninsula called Arabia.  Study some geography.


----------



## Lipush

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
Click to expand...


Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.

It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.


----------



## dreolin

ForeverYoung436 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exposing that the intolerant, racist arab muslims believe they can "conquer" Israel through means other than war - like the mexicans in the US - so they have no reason in their minds to negotiate in good faith, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> What then is the incentive for Israel to not expel or deport all/most of them out of the country, like Azerbaijan did in the 1990s?
> 
> That country deported all of its muslims, suffered a few years of hypocritical sanctions which ended, and is now doing quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...
> 
> Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel/Palestine is part of an area of Asia called the Middle East.  It's not part of the peninsula called Arabia.  Study some geography.
Click to expand...


He said "Arabia", not the "Arabian peninsula".

Study some history.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

dreolin said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...
> 
> Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel/Palestine is part of an area of Asia called the Middle East.  It's not part of the peninsula called Arabia.  Study some geography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said "Arabia", not the "Arabian peninsula".
> 
> Study some history.
Click to expand...


Yes, he said Arabia which is incorrect, and I was pointing him in the right direction.  I have studied history, and it says that the Arabs from Arabia conquered Israel/Palestine in the Middle East.  So who are the thieves now?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

dreolin said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...
> 
> Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel/Palestine is part of an area of Asia called the Middle East.  It's not part of the peninsula called Arabia.  Study some geography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said "Arabia", not the "Arabian peninsula".
> 
> Study some history.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between history and geography.  They are not the same subject.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lipush said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
Click to expand...


Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.

Where do you get this disconnect from reality?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
Click to expand...


During a certain period before the 1948 war, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. During the war, the Arabs set up a blockade on 100 000 Jews in Jerusalem, almost staving them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
Click to expand...





Cant you read English Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the muslims forcibly evicted the Jews in 1948. Then they set about removing all traces of Jewish life from Jerusalem so they could claim that it was never in Jewish control. In 1967 when Israel took control they allowed the muslims to still hold onto the temple mount and to use the carbuncles there. Why should Israel give them any more than they have, the muslims would not do the same for the Jews.

The Koran never mentions Jerusalem at all yet the muslims claim that the carbuncle is the lost mosque and is allegedly one of their most holy sites. No evidence exists to support this claim so it is time for the UN to make a ruling on this.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant you read English Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the muslims forcibly evicted the Jews in 1948. Then they set about removing all traces of Jewish life from Jerusalem so they could claim that it was never in Jewish control. In 1967 when Israel took control they allowed the muslims to still hold onto the temple mount and to use the carbuncles there. Why should Israel give them any more than they have, the muslims would not do the same for the Jews.
> 
> The Koran never mentions Jerusalem at all yet the muslims claim that the carbuncle is the lost mosque and is allegedly one of their most holy sites. No evidence exists to support this claim so it is time for the UN to make a ruling on this.
Click to expand...


They might end up without most of the WB and no trade, tax or tariff income along with borders shut tight.  If they are unwilling to make any compromise with Israel they might well end up wishing Arafat had accepted sharm-el-sheikh and kiss Sharon's hand on the mount, not just an offer to shake hands.


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exposing that the intolerant, racist arab muslims believe they can "conquer" Israel through means other than war - like the mexicans in the US - so they have no reason in their minds to negotiate in good faith, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> What then is the incentive for Israel to not expel or deport all/most of them out of the country, like Azerbaijan did in the 1990s?
> 
> That country deported all of its muslims, suffered a few years of hypocritical sanctions which ended, and is now doing quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...
> 
> Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel/Palestine is part of an area of Asia called the Middle East.  It's not part of the peninsula called Arabia.  Study some geography.
Click to expand...


I never said Arabian Peninsula, but thanks for your spell check..


Arabian Peninsula - Wiktionary

the Arabian Peninsula
1.A peninsula in the Middle East, bordered on by Jordan, the Syrian desert and Iraq to the north, the Persian Gulf to the northeast, the Gulf of Oman to the east, the Arabian Sea (part of the Indian Ocean) to the south (southeast), the Gulf of Aden to the south, the Red Sea to the west (southwest) extending north into the Gulf of Aqaba, and north along the Red Sea Rift to the Mediterranean Sea on the west (northwest). It consists mainly of Saudi Arabia, and may be geologically defined as the Arabian plate, also as the Arabian subcontinent.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cant you read English Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the muslims forcibly evicted the Jews in 1948. *Then they set about removing all traces of Jewish life from Jerusalem so they could claim that it was never in Jewish control. In 1967 when Israel took control they allowed the muslims to still hold onto the temple mount and to use the carbuncles there. Why should Israel give them any more than they have, the muslims would not do the same for the Jews.
> 
> The Koran never mentions Jerusalem at all yet the muslims claim that the carbuncle is the lost mosque and is allegedly one of their most holy sites. No evidence exists to support this claim so it is time for the UN to make a ruling on this.
Click to expand...


Thank you. That is what I said.

None of that would have happened without Israel.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Jerusalem and I've felt what's in the air there that no youtube or picture can convey.  So I, more than most people, am against dividing Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem does not equal only the Old City.  Many Arab villages were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six-Day War.  Some creativity can be displayed in "dividing" parts of "Jerusalem", like Silwan or Abu Dis, which can satisfy both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The filastins wont accept a shared capital, with them it is all or nothing. Leave them another 2 or 3 years and they will start to die out due to overcrowding, disease, starvation and infighting. If they want war then let them declare war and show the world that it is them being intransigent and belligerent. _At the end of the day Jerusalem was 60% Jewish owned in 1948 _before the arab armies tried genocide instead of talking
Click to expand...


Ownership by money is not ownership of sovereignty, at the end of the day Jerusalem had been Arab controlled for a millennia...money can't buy you love or nationhood.

I don't see Israel offering to share, I only see settlement building on others lands. no one on planet Earth has recognized her annexation, not even her greatest ally America.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cant you read English Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the muslims forcibly evicted the Jews in 1948. *Then they set about removing all traces of Jewish life from Jerusalem so they could claim that it was never in Jewish control. In 1967 when Israel took control they allowed the muslims to still hold onto the temple mount and to use the carbuncles there. Why should Israel give them any more than they have, the muslims would not do the same for the Jews.
> 
> The Koran never mentions Jerusalem at all yet the muslims claim that the carbuncle is the lost mosque and is allegedly one of their most holy sites. No evidence exists to support this claim so it is time for the UN to make a ruling on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I said.
> 
> None of that would have happened without Israel.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the Arab states were justified in cleansing the Jews from their countries ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Cant you read English Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the muslims forcibly evicted the Jews in 1948. *Then they set about removing all traces of Jewish life from Jerusalem so they could claim that it was never in Jewish control. In 1967 when Israel took control they allowed the muslims to still hold onto the temple mount and to use the carbuncles there. Why should Israel give them any more than they have, the muslims would not do the same for the Jews.
> 
> The Koran never mentions Jerusalem at all yet the muslims claim that the carbuncle is the lost mosque and is allegedly one of their most holy sites. No evidence exists to support this claim so it is time for the UN to make a ruling on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I said.
> 
> None of that would have happened without Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the Arab states were justified in cleansing the Jews from their countries ?
Click to expand...


No, but it was a response to Israel. It wouldn't have happened without Israel.


----------



## toastman

And most of the Palestinian Arabs would not have been expelled or would have left had it not been for the invading Arab countries in 1948


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> And most of the Palestinian Arabs would not have been expelled or would have left had it not been for the invading Arab countries in 1948



The 1948 war was not the reason for expelling the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cant you read English Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the muslims forcibly evicted the Jews in 1948. *Then they set about removing all traces of Jewish life from Jerusalem so they could claim that it was never in Jewish control. In 1967 when Israel took control they allowed the muslims to still hold onto the temple mount and to use the carbuncles there. Why should Israel give them any more than they have, the muslims would not do the same for the Jews.
> 
> The Koran never mentions Jerusalem at all yet the muslims claim that the carbuncle is the lost mosque and is allegedly one of their most holy sites. No evidence exists to support this claim so it is time for the UN to make a ruling on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I said.
> 
> None of that would have happened without Israel.
Click to expand...





 Can you remember just what status Jerusalem had in 1948 under the UN charter, and how the arab league stole it for their own use. How they defiled anything that was Jewish or eradicated any sign of the Jews ever being there. Forcibly evicted Jews from their property and installed muslim squatters in the homes. It was never going to see another Jewish person according to the arabs, until Israel took it back and gave the UN first refusal on ruling it. What you said is that Jerusalem was shared when it never was not. 1948 it was predominantly Jewish 1949 it was predominantly muslim then in 1967 it became predominantly Jewish again as befits the most holy site of the Jews.

 Maybe the filistans should desecrate your family burial plot and use the headstones to line their cess pits with ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The filastins wont accept a shared capital, with them it is all or nothing. Leave them another 2 or 3 years and they will start to die out due to overcrowding, disease, starvation and infighting. If they want war then let them declare war and show the world that it is them being intransigent and belligerent. _At the end of the day Jerusalem was 60% Jewish owned in 1948 _before the arab armies tried genocide instead of talking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ownership by money is not ownership of sovereignty, at the end of the day Jerusalem had been Arab controlled for a millennia...money can't buy you love or nationhood.
> 
> I don't see Israel offering to share, I only see settlement building on others lands. no one on planet Earth has recognized her annexation, not even her greatest ally America.
Click to expand...




 What you see is an illusion that does not exist, Jerusalem was not arab controlled for nearly 1200 years, it was owned by the Ottoman empire who sold the property to the Jews so they could administer it for the Ottomans. So it was owned and ruled by the Jews while the arabs were still in the process of migrating to the area. 
 What you see as settlement building on others land is actually Jews building on Jewish owned land, paid for by Jewish families prior to the mandate. Land deeds that the British accepted as valid and so used the land ownership as ball park figure to allocate land for the Jewish state. The maps show very little in the way of arab land ownership pre 1948, and anyone can buy a rusty key and claim it fitted the door to their 25 roomed mansion in the middle of Jerusalem


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I said.
> 
> None of that would have happened without Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the Arab states were justified in cleansing the Jews from their countries ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it was a response to Israel. It wouldn't have happened without Israel.
Click to expand...





 So the systematic ethnic cleansing of 10 million Jews from the M.E over a 1400 year period would not have happened without Israel. The riots and MASS MURDERS  of 1929 would not have happened without Israel. The 6 million deaths at the hands of the Germans would not have happened without Isreal.   

None of it would have happened without RACIST ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS LIKE YOURSELF pulling the strings and calling the shots.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And most of the Palestinian Arabs would not have been expelled or would have left had it not been for the invading Arab countries in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1948 war was not the reason for expelling the Palestinians.
Click to expand...






 So the arab leaders were lying when they told the muslims to up sticks and move until the Jews had been ethnically cleansed from the land.   Or are you still reading the pallywood book of LIES AND LIBEL for anti semitic Jew haters


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And most of the Palestinian Arabs would not have been expelled or would have left had it not been for the invading Arab countries in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1948 war was not the reason for expelling the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the arab leaders were lying when they told the muslims to up sticks and move until the Jews had been ethnically cleansed from the land.   Or are you still reading the pallywood book of LIES AND LIBEL for anti semitic Jew haters
Click to expand...


No that is an Israeli lie. Only a few percent were advised to leave and nobody ceded their land.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will never happen, share it as a dual Capital or war with Islam forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
Click to expand...


How was Jerusalem "Shared" before Israel?

Could Jews go pray daily at the Western Wall before 1948?


----------



## Lipush

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is at war with *us * they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.
> 
> It wasn't our call. It's their _own_ religious delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During a certain period before the 1948 war, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. During the war, the Arabs set up a blockade on 100 000 Jews in Jerusalem, almost staving them.
Click to expand...


Someone is in need of a history lesson, and It isn't me.

Mr Tinmore is not only biased, but historically ignorant as well, it seems


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I said.
> 
> None of that would have happened without Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the Arab states were justified in cleansing the Jews from their countries ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it was a response to Israel. It wouldn't have happened without Israel.
Click to expand...


Yes, everything is israel's fault.

You pro-Palestinians are all psychos


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lipush said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the Arab states were justified in cleansing the Jews from their countries ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it was a response to Israel. It wouldn't have happened without Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everything is israel's fault.
> 
> You pro-Palestinians are all psychos
Click to expand...


So you are saying that Jews lived in those countries basically forever and for no reason whatsoever they got up one morning and decided that they hate Jews?

And you think I am nuts?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lipush said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem was shared before Israel. Now it is not.
> 
> Where do you get this disconnect from reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During a certain period before the 1948 war, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. During the war, the Arabs set up a blockade on 100 000 Jews in Jerusalem, almost staving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone is in need of a history lesson, and It isn't me.
> 
> Mr Tinmore is not only biased, but historically ignorant as well, it seems
Click to expand...


Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> During a certain period before the 1948 war, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. During the war, the Arabs set up a blockade on 100 000 Jews in Jerusalem, almost staving them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone is in need of a history lesson, and It isn't me.
> 
> Mr Tinmore is not only biased, but historically ignorant as well, it seems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.
Click to expand...


"Israels war against Palestine" 

Ya, you're not biased at all.... 

There was no war against 'Palestine'. Between 1947 until Israel declared independence, it was known as the Mandatory Palestine Civil War, where Jewish and Arab residents fought. There was no war against Palestine. That is the ultimate Arab propaganda. 

I already know what your response is going to be...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone is in need of a history lesson, and It isn't me.
> 
> Mr Tinmore is not only biased, but historically ignorant as well, it seems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Israels war against Palestine"
> 
> Ya, you're not biased at all....
> 
> There was no war against 'Palestine'. Between 1947 until Israel declared independence, it was known as the Mandatory Palestine Civil War, where Jewish and Arab residents fought. There was no war against Palestine. That is the ultimate Arab propaganda.
> 
> I already know what your response is going to be...
Click to expand...


"Between residents" is misleading. It was between the natives and encroaching immigrants.

You can call it a civil war if you want but it really wasn't.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Israels war against Palestine"
> 
> Ya, you're not biased at all....
> 
> There was no war against 'Palestine'. Between 1947 until Israel declared independence, it was known as the Mandatory Palestine Civil War, where Jewish and Arab residents fought. There was no war against Palestine. That is the ultimate Arab propaganda.
> 
> I already know what your response is going to be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Between residents" is misleading. It was between the natives and encroaching immigrants.
> 
> You can call it a civil war if you want but it really wasn't.
Click to expand...


False. Many Arabs from surrounding countries had joined the 'Palestinian' Arab forces. Why did you leave that out?
Both belligerents had some outsiders, but the main fighters were the resident forces


----------



## toastman

And yes, it was a civil war. You cannot just change history and call it what you want.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Israels war against Palestine"
> 
> Ya, you're not biased at all....
> 
> There was no war against 'Palestine'. Between 1947 until Israel declared independence, it was known as the Mandatory Palestine Civil War, where Jewish and Arab residents fought. There was no war against Palestine. That is the ultimate Arab propaganda.
> 
> I already know what your response is going to be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Between residents" is misleading. It was between the natives and encroaching immigrants.
> 
> You can call it a civil war if you want but it really wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Many Arabs from surrounding countries had joined the 'Palestinian' Arab forces. Why did you leave that out?
> Both belligerents had some outsiders, but the main fighters were the resident forces
Click to expand...


Because they are merely symptoms of the root problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> And yes, it was a civil war. You cannot just change history and call it what you want.



I don't.


----------



## toastman

Then show me the online article that you have been reading that discusses the clashes between the 'Palestinian' Arabs and Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Then show me the online article that you have been reading that discusses the clashes between the 'Palestinian' Arabs and Jews.



It is what it is. The Zionists imported foreign settlers by the boatload to take over the country. They started a war and expelled the natives.

Civil war is a misnomer.


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then show me the online article that you have been reading that discusses the clashes between the 'Palestinian' Arabs and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is what it is. The Zionists imported foreign settlers by the boatload to take over the country. They started a war and expelled the natives.
> 
> Civil war is a misnomer.
Click to expand...



Hmm, those Egyptians must know what went on if one official was calling the Gazans to come back to Egypt where they belong.  Of course Mr. Tinmore will never admit that those Gazans came from Egypt originally.  Imagine if the Jews from Europe didn't come and build up the country.  Then all those poor Arabs would have stayed in their impoverished surrounding countries because there would have been no jobs for them.  Mybe Mr. Tinmore closes his eyes to all the Arabs and other Muslims who have left therir Muslim countries from the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia because their countries are poor and can't supply them with jobs.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then show me the online article that you have been reading that discusses the clashes between the 'Palestinian' Arabs and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is what it is. The Zionists imported foreign settlers by the boatload to take over the country. They started a war and expelled the natives.
> 
> Civil war is a misnomer.
Click to expand...


Everyone called it what it was, a civil war. Thousands of Arab forces from Syria and other countries joined the 'Palestinian Arabs' as well. And you still havent shown me where you are reading this.

And again, there was no country to take over, it was mandated T-E-R-R-I-T-O-R-Y. 
The fact that you keep denying this shows how little you know about history. 
Why do I even waste my time with you.


----------



## MHunterB

So is the lying 'title' of this asinine thread.   Nobody's asking the Palestinians to 'bow'.  Enjoy playing with yourself and your little strawman, Tinny.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it was a response to Israel. It wouldn't have happened without Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, everything is israel's fault.
> 
> You pro-Palestinians are all psychos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Jews lived in those countries basically forever and for no reason whatsoever they got up one morning and decided that they hate Jews?
> 
> And you think I am nuts?
Click to expand...




 You are nuts as the truth has been shown many times. The muslims hate the Jews and have done so since Mohamed committed genocide on the Tribe of Jews in medina. From that day on he stated that the Jews were the enemy of islam and will be killed on sight.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Between residents" is misleading. It was between the natives and encroaching immigrants.
> 
> You can call it a civil war if you want but it really wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Many Arabs from surrounding countries had joined the 'Palestinian' Arab forces. Why did you leave that out?
> Both belligerents had some outsiders, but the main fighters were the resident forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are merely symptoms of the root problem.
Click to expand...




 And the rooy problem is the commands in the Koran that have seen the MASS MURDER of 10 million Jews since the genocide of the Jewish tribe in medina


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> During a certain period before the 1948 war, Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. During the war, the Arabs set up a blockade on 100 000 Jews in Jerusalem, almost staving them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone is in need of a history lesson, and It isn't me.
> 
> Mr Tinmore is not only biased, but historically ignorant as well, it seems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.
Click to expand...




Israel did not exist until may 1948, so anything before this time was the arab's obeying the commands in the Koran that tell them to wipe out the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then show me the online article that you have been reading that discusses the clashes between the 'Palestinian' Arabs and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is what it is. The Zionists imported foreign settlers by the boatload to take over the country. They started a war and expelled the natives.
> 
> Civil war is a misnomer.
Click to expand...





Yet if you take a look at the records you see that the British stopped all Jewish migration into Palestine while encouraging the muslims to migrate in their thousands.

 Jewish vs. Arab Immigration


During World War I, the Jewish population declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population continued to grow exponentially even while that of the Jews stagnated. 

In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washingtons imposition of restrictive quotas.5 

The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 

The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. 

By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.7 

The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.8 

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the shortfall of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.9 

British Restrictions on Jewish Immigration to Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library

So who was it again that was migrating to Palestine illegally and causing all the problems ?


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone is in need of a history lesson, and It isn't me.
> 
> Mr Tinmore is not only biased, but historically ignorant as well, it seems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not exist until may 1948, so anything before this time was the arab's obeying the commands in the Koran that tell them to wipe out the Jews
Click to expand...


The whole face of the map changed after WWI and WWII.
People through out time have been redrawing the map.  Every country was created at some time in the past.  There was no middle east, with a few autonomous zones.
No palestine, no arabia, UEA, no syria, no iraq.
You can't have the ottoman empire back, so get used to the fact that the region was carved and and now states do exist, if they would stop trying to kill each other.
Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
Syria started off as five states.  They throw off kings and pretend to have elections for dictators and despots.
Tribal/clan fighting have gone on centuries.  Last century they were marking their land by who owns which well.  Now they have countries to govern.
The formation of Israel was well known.  Palestine (region) was under developed, under populated and cost more to govern than it could bring in with taxes.
Jews that lived in the region or jews that were scatted are still tied to Jerusalem.  I is the one thing the most identify with.  It is the what has kept them united and strong.  They care for it, they love it, they will nurture it.  Sadly the palestinians just want to spill blood on it, as if salting the land so nothing but hate can grow.
Israel has as much right to exist as any other in the world.  Arabs, christians, druze, whatever, they have learned to united as one people.  The only thing apartheid is the palestinians refusal to recognize Israel.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My own feelings on the acculturation process is a fact of humanity, "No man is an island to himself"... *80% of the present Palestinian genome has roots in ancient Israel...However, I believe a two state solution will lead to many centuries of peace and prosperity for a tiny part of Arabia called Palestine...
> 
> Prosperity unlike acculturation spreads like wild-fire, and prosperity brings peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel/Palestine is part of an area of Asia called the Middle East.  It's not part of the peninsula called Arabia.  Study some geography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said Arabian Peninsula, but thanks for your spell check..
> 
> 
> Arabian Peninsula - Wiktionary
> 
> the Arabian Peninsula
> 1.A peninsula in the Middle East, bordered on by Jordan, the Syrian desert and Iraq to the north, the Persian Gulf to the northeast, the Gulf of Oman to the east, the Arabian Sea (part of the Indian Ocean) to the south (southeast), the Gulf of Aden to the south, the Red Sea to the west (southwest) extending north into the Gulf of Aqaba, and north along the Red Sea Rift to the Mediterranean Sea on the west (northwest). It consists mainly of Saudi Arabia, and may be geologically defined as the Arabian plate, also as the Arabian subcontinent.
Click to expand...


I said Arabian peninsula to point you in the right direction.  To incorrectly call Israel a part of Arabia gives the impression that Israel is just another part of the already huge Arab landmass.  However, Israel was conquered by Arabian thieves, coming out of Arabia, some time ago.  Then it passed to Crusaders, Turks, Brits, and finally Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's war against Palestine started around the time that the British landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. The war did not "start" in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not exist until may 1948, so anything before this time was the arab's obeying the commands in the Koran that tell them to wipe out the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole face of the map changed after WWI and WWII.
> People through out time have been redrawing the map.  Every country was created at some time in the past.  There was no middle east, with a few autonomous zones.
> No palestine, no arabia, UEA, no syria, no iraq.
> You can't have the ottoman empire back, so get used to the fact that the region was carved and and now states do exist, if they would stop trying to kill each other.
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> Syria started off as five states.  They throw off kings and pretend to have elections for dictators and despots.
> Tribal/clan fighting have gone on centuries.  Last century they were marking their land by who owns which well.  Now they have countries to govern.
> The formation of Israel was well known.  Palestine (region) was under developed, under populated and cost more to govern than it could bring in with taxes.
> Jews that lived in the region or jews that were scatted are still tied to Jerusalem.  I is the one thing the most identify with.  It is the what has kept them united and strong.  They care for it, they love it, they will nurture it.  Sadly the palestinians just want to spill blood on it, as if salting the land so nothing but hate can grow.
> Israel has as much right to exist as any other in the world.  Arabs, christians, druze, whatever, they have learned to united as one people.  The only thing apartheid is the palestinians refusal to recognize Israel.
Click to expand...




> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.



That may be true or not but either way it is irrelevant. Palestine was created by post war treaties like all of the other countries in the region.

Those treaties defined Palestine's international borders. 

All of the people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.) whose normal residence was inside those defined borders at that time became the distinct nationality of Palestinian.

All of these people were citizens of Palestine.

The mandate was assigned to Palestine. The mandate called Palestine a country many times.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not exist until may 1948, so anything before this time was the arab's obeying the commands in the Koran that tell them to wipe out the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole face of the map changed after WWI and WWII.
> People through out time have been redrawing the map.  Every country was created at some time in the past.  There was no middle east, with a few autonomous zones.
> No palestine, no arabia, UEA, no syria, no iraq.
> You can't have the ottoman empire back, so get used to the fact that the region was carved and and now states do exist, if they would stop trying to kill each other.
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> Syria started off as five states.  They throw off kings and pretend to have elections for dictators and despots.
> Tribal/clan fighting have gone on centuries.  Last century they were marking their land by who owns which well.  Now they have countries to govern.
> The formation of Israel was well known.  Palestine (region) was under developed, under populated and cost more to govern than it could bring in with taxes.
> Jews that lived in the region or jews that were scatted are still tied to Jerusalem.  I is the one thing the most identify with.  It is the what has kept them united and strong.  They care for it, they love it, they will nurture it.  Sadly the palestinians just want to spill blood on it, as if salting the land so nothing but hate can grow.
> Israel has as much right to exist as any other in the world.  Arabs, christians, druze, whatever, they have learned to united as one people.  The only thing apartheid is the palestinians refusal to recognize Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true or not but either way it is irrelevant. Palestine was created by post war treaties like all of the other countries in the region.
> 
> Those treaties defined Palestine's international borders.
> 
> All of the people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.) whose normal residence was inside those defined borders at that time became the distinct nationality of Palestinian.
> 
> All of these people were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The mandate was assigned to Palestine. The mandate called Palestine a country many times.
Click to expand...



A mandate was created.  From that mandate came the arabs state of trans-Jordan/Jordan and later Israel.  Arabs rejected a palestinian state in the UN.

Semi autonomous Lebanon was created as a state in '43 and later '45 5 Syrian states (later Syria) were created from the French mandate.

Palestinians, those who had lived and worked in the Mandate at least two years before it ends, were offered a state.  Jordan and Egypt took that land after attacking Israel within minutes of the mandate ending.  Both were returned to Israel in the camp david accord.

Israel withdrew from Gaza and parts of the WB in a hope for cessation of violence.  Sadly that did not happen.  Israel has been trying to negotiate with the PA so palestinians could have a state.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not exist until may 1948, so anything before this time was the arab's obeying the commands in the Koran that tell them to wipe out the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole face of the map changed after WWI and WWII.
> People through out time have been redrawing the map.  Every country was created at some time in the past.  There was no middle east, with a few autonomous zones.
> No palestine, no arabia, UEA, no syria, no iraq.
> You can't have the ottoman empire back, so get used to the fact that the region was carved and and now states do exist, if they would stop trying to kill each other.
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> Syria started off as five states.  They throw off kings and pretend to have elections for dictators and despots.
> Tribal/clan fighting have gone on centuries.  Last century they were marking their land by who owns which well.  Now they have countries to govern.
> The formation of Israel was well known.  Palestine (region) was under developed, under populated and cost more to govern than it could bring in with taxes.
> Jews that lived in the region or jews that were scatted are still tied to Jerusalem.  I is the one thing the most identify with.  It is the what has kept them united and strong.  They care for it, they love it, they will nurture it.  Sadly the palestinians just want to spill blood on it, as if salting the land so nothing but hate can grow.
> Israel has as much right to exist as any other in the world.  Arabs, christians, druze, whatever, they have learned to united as one people.  The only thing apartheid is the palestinians refusal to recognize Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true or not but either way it is irrelevant. Palestine was created by post war treaties like all of the other countries in the region.
> 
> Those treaties defined Palestine's international borders.
> 
> All of the people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.) whose normal residence was inside those defined borders at that time became the distinct nationality of Palestinian.
> 
> All of these people were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The mandate was assigned to Palestine. The mandate called Palestine a country many times.
Click to expand...


This is false. A palestinian state was not created and Palestine has no international borders. Stop lying


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._The mandate called Palestine a country many times._"


I wouldn't read too much into that.

It's easier than writing "...that unincorporated region traditionally called Palestine which has never been a polity or nation-state unto itself and which is presently unorganized and incapable of governing itself on a par with recognized nation-states in a manner suitable for the benefit of all the elements of its diverse population..."

Saying "country" is so much simpler, isn't it? 

Doesn't mean they actually were or are one, though.

Besides, if you're unwilling to accept British judgement as to the disposition of the land, then you cannot suddenly judge the British competent to call Palestine a 'country' in the sense of the word that you wish to use.

If the British aren't good enough to d_ispose_ of the land, then they certainly aren't good enough to _label_ or to authoritatively assign _attributes_ to the land.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not exist until may 1948, so anything before this time was the arab's obeying the commands in the Koran that tell them to wipe out the Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole face of the map changed after WWI and WWII.
> People through out time have been redrawing the map.  Every country was created at some time in the past.  There was no middle east, with a few autonomous zones.
> No palestine, no arabia, UEA, no syria, no iraq.
> You can't have the ottoman empire back, so get used to the fact that the region was carved and and now states do exist, if they would stop trying to kill each other.
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> Syria started off as five states.  They throw off kings and pretend to have elections for dictators and despots.
> Tribal/clan fighting have gone on centuries.  Last century they were marking their land by who owns which well.  Now they have countries to govern.
> The formation of Israel was well known.  Palestine (region) was under developed, under populated and cost more to govern than it could bring in with taxes.
> Jews that lived in the region or jews that were scatted are still tied to Jerusalem.  I is the one thing the most identify with.  It is the what has kept them united and strong.  They care for it, they love it, they will nurture it.  Sadly the palestinians just want to spill blood on it, as if salting the land so nothing but hate can grow.
> Israel has as much right to exist as any other in the world.  Arabs, christians, druze, whatever, they have learned to united as one people.  The only thing apartheid is the palestinians refusal to recognize Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true or not but either way it is irrelevant. Palestine was created by post war treaties like all of the other countries in the region.
> 
> Those treaties defined Palestine's international borders.
> 
> All of the people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.) whose normal residence was inside those defined borders at that time became the distinct nationality of Palestinian.
> 
> All of these people were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The mandate was assigned to Palestine. The mandate called Palestine a country many times.
Click to expand...





 If what you say is correct then Jordan is still part of Palestine along with Saudi, Syria and Lebanon. And its INTERNATIONAL BORDERS take up some if not all of these sovereign countries. So why don't you send an email to the UN and the heads of all the countries involved demanding that the land be given back to the indigenous Palestinian people. You yourself have produced the maps showing these borders so you cant deny they exist.

 Once again your total stupidity has turned round and bit you hard on the arse and shown you complete lack of any intelligence regarding the two mandates or the definition of borders. Read 242 which spells it out very clearly Palestine has no borders and all the parties concerned have to negotiate clear and defensible borders. And for the record there is never any mention of Palestine or the filastins in 242.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole face of the map changed after WWI and WWII.
> People through out time have been redrawing the map.  Every country was created at some time in the past.  There was no middle east, with a few autonomous zones.
> No palestine, no arabia, UEA, no syria, no iraq.
> You can't have the ottoman empire back, so get used to the fact that the region was carved and and now states do exist, if they would stop trying to kill each other.
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> Syria started off as five states.  They throw off kings and pretend to have elections for dictators and despots.
> Tribal/clan fighting have gone on centuries.  Last century they were marking their land by who owns which well.  Now they have countries to govern.
> The formation of Israel was well known.  Palestine (region) was under developed, under populated and cost more to govern than it could bring in with taxes.
> Jews that lived in the region or jews that were scatted are still tied to Jerusalem.  I is the one thing the most identify with.  It is the what has kept them united and strong.  They care for it, they love it, they will nurture it.  Sadly the palestinians just want to spill blood on it, as if salting the land so nothing but hate can grow.
> Israel has as much right to exist as any other in the world.  Arabs, christians, druze, whatever, they have learned to united as one people.  The only thing apartheid is the palestinians refusal to recognize Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither arabs nor turks care to give the arabs a palestinian state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true or not but either way it is irrelevant. Palestine was created by post war treaties like all of the other countries in the region.
> 
> Those treaties defined Palestine's international borders.
> 
> All of the people (Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.) whose normal residence was inside those defined borders at that time became the distinct nationality of Palestinian.
> 
> All of these people were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The mandate was assigned to Palestine. The mandate called Palestine a country many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is false. A palestinian state was not created and Palestine has no international borders. Stop lying
Click to expand...


Look for international boundaries in the legend, then find them on the map.







Where were these borders after the 1948 war?



> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary* between the *Lebanon and Palestine*.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949





> Where the existing truce lines run along the *international boundary between Syria and Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line
> 
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949



*Still there.*


----------



## toastman

You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!

That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.

Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.

Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.


Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political

Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!
> 
> That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.
> 
> Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.
> 
> 
> Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political
> 
> Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.





> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,...
> *
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949



Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.

When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!
> 
> That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.
> 
> Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.
> 
> 
> Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political
> 
> Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,...
> *
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
Click to expand...





 1948 when the legal owners gave the land to them as a gift, or have you forgotten that part of history. And if you look the alleged border is actually a cease fire line, read the legend to the left.


----------



## Billo_Really

Lipush said:


> There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.
> 
> There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.
> 
> The right to exist as a people is something that was offered to them in 1948. But they chose to see it that this right means that WE cannot exist as a people.
> 
> They opened a war to "establish" this right for identity, which means the destruction of ours.
> 
> They have lost.
> 
> They don't have a state today simply because we insist on existing.
> 
> That is why we're hated. For existing.
> 
> If it's us existing or them, we chose us.
> 
> Once it stops being "or", a game they have started, they'll win justice.
> 
> But as long as they insist on destroying us, they'll live with sorrow.
> 
> It's very simple.


You're hated because you treat them like garbage, have no regard for human rights and international law and refuse to take responsibility for the shit you do.  

You're hated for the things you have done and are doing.

People are okay with you existing; they are not okay with you existing on land that isn't yours.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!
> 
> That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.
> 
> Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.
> 
> 
> Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political
> 
> Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,...
> *
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
Click to expand...


The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land . 
You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel. 

And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file


Again, this is not something that is up for discussion


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> 
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion


What name you call them doesn't mean shit.  

They are indigenous arabs and they have rights.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> 
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
> 
> 
> 
> What name you call them doesn't mean shit.
> 
> They are indigenous arabs and they have rights.
Click to expand...


What I call who ?

What are you talking about ??


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> What I call who ?
> 
> What are you talking about ??


You made an issue over the name "Palestinian's", as if it was relevant to the conversation.  I'm saying what name you call these people has nothing to do with this situation.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I call who ?
> 
> What are you talking about ??
> 
> 
> 
> You made an issue over the name "Palestinian's", as if it was relevant to the conversation.  I'm saying what name you call these people has nothing to do with this situation.
Click to expand...


You misunderstood. I was saying that Israels land withing the green line is not Palestines land. Nothing to do with the name Palestine or Palestinians


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> You misunderstood. I was saying that Israels land withing the green line is not Palestines land. Nothing to do with the name Palestine or Palestinians


Sorry, my bad.

And yes, you are correct.  It is not the Palestinian's land.  That's Israel.


----------



## toastman

Kershaw, Dodgers agree on seven-year, $215M deal

$ 30 M a year


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Kershaw, Dodgers agree on seven-year, $215M deal
> 
> $ 30 M a year


Don't talk to me about sports, my team sucks!


----------



## toastman

Lakers?


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Lakers?


We've lost 5 in a row and 9 out of 10.


----------



## toastman

Oh boo fuckin hoo   


The Lakers have won more Championships then I can remember lol


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.
> 
> There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.
> 
> The right to exist as a people is something that was offered to them in 1948. But they chose to see it that this right means that WE cannot exist as a people.
> 
> They opened a war to "establish" this right for identity, which means the destruction of ours.
> 
> They have lost.
> 
> They don't have a state today simply because we insist on existing.
> 
> That is why we're hated. For existing.
> 
> If it's us existing or them, we chose us.
> 
> Once it stops being "or", a game they have started, they'll win justice.
> 
> But as long as they insist on destroying us, they'll live with sorrow.
> 
> It's very simple.
> 
> 
> 
> You're hated because you treat them like garbage, have no regard for human rights and international law and refuse to take responsibility for the shit you do.
> 
> You're hated for the things you have done and are doing.
> 
> People are okay with you existing; they are not okay with you existing on land that isn't yours.
Click to expand...





 That should not be a problem to you after all you exist on land that is not yours, land stolen by your forefathers from its legal owners.
As for the land in Palestine that you claim is muslim, even they will tell you they arrived a little over 100 years ago and forcibly removed the Jews from much of the land. Your problem is that you are a RACIST NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATER


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!
> 
> That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.
> 
> Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.
> 
> 
> Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political
> 
> Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,...
> *
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1948 when the legal owners gave the land to them as a gift, or have you forgotten that part of history. And if you look the alleged border is actually a cease fire line, read the legend to the left.
Click to expand...


Who do you say were the legal owners and when did this transfer take place? What were the established borders of that land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!
> 
> That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.
> 
> Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.
> 
> 
> Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political
> 
> Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,...
> *
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> 
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
Click to expand...


So, when the UN used the term "southernmost tip of Palestine" in its armistice agreement, what were they talking about? What country were they talking about? Whose land was it?


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Oh boo fuckin hoo
> 
> 
> The Lakers have won more Championships then I can remember lol


17 to be exact.  Celtics have won 18.

If we miss the playoffs, it will be the first time we didn't play in the post-season in 18 years.  We've made the playoffs the last 18 years in a row.

People hate the Lakers more than they do Israel.

I guess people don't like someone who's "always" good.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> That should not be a problem to you after all you exist on land that is not yours, land stolen by your forefathers from its legal owners.
> As for the land in Palestine that you claim is muslim, even they will tell you they arrived a little over 100 years ago and forcibly removed the Jews from much of the land. Your problem is that you are a RACIST NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATER


Yeah,  but I like a good book, long walks on the beach and...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using that map as if it helps you at all lol !!
> 
> That is a map of the partition plan. The borders you see there are PROJECTED BORDERS.
> 
> Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Here is a CURRENT map, something you are not able to produce.
> 
> 
> Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political
> 
> Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY line where Egypt-Israel is and where Jordan-Israel is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,...
> *
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> *You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> *
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
Click to expand...


Resolution 181 was a plan for the Palestinians to give land to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan.

Britain would not transfer that land without Palestinian approval.

The UN Security Council would not transfer the land without Palestinian approval.

The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate plan.

Where did the Palestinians get the authority to reject this land transfer if the land was not theirs?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> 
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the UN used the term "southernmost tip of Palestine" in its armistice agreement, what were they talking about? What country were they talking about? Whose land was it?
Click to expand...


The armisitice lines were signed in 1949, 30 years BEFORE the Israel Egypt treaty and 45 years before the Israel - Jordan peace treaty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> 
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the UN used the term "southernmost tip of Palestine" in its armistice agreement, what were they talking about? What country were they talking about? Whose land was it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armisitice lines were signed in 1949, 30 years BEFORE the Israel Egypt treaty and 45 years before the Israel - Jordan peace treaty.
Click to expand...


So? How did Israel get Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> *You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> *
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was a plan for the Palestinians to give land to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan.
> 
> Britain would not transfer that land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The UN Security Council would not transfer the land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate plan.
> 
> Where did the Palestinians get the authority to reject this land transfer if the land was not theirs?
Click to expand...


Land transfer is a matter of real estate. Nothing to do with practicing sovereignty, which Israel did in 1948. 

When I say you made that up, I meant you didn't read it somewhere, it's just your opinion. 2


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the UN used the term "southernmost tip of Palestine" in its armistice agreement, what were they talking about? What country were they talking about? Whose land was it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armisitice lines were signed in 1949, 30 years BEFORE the Israel Egypt treaty and 45 years before the Israel - Jordan peace treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? How did Israel get Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt?
Click to expand...


It's obvious you don't recognize Israels declaration of independence


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> *You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> *
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was a plan for the Palestinians to give land to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan.
> 
> Britain would not transfer that land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The UN Security Council would not transfer the land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate plan.
> 
> Where did the Palestinians get the authority to reject this land transfer if the land was not theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Land transfer is a matter of real estate. Nothing to do with practicing sovereignty, which Israel did in 1948.
> 
> When I say you made that up, I meant you didn't read it somewhere, it's just your opinion. 2
Click to expand...


So, Israel has no land because that is a real estate thing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The armisitice lines were signed in 1949, 30 years BEFORE the Israel Egypt treaty and 45 years before the Israel - Jordan peace treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? How did Israel get Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious you don't recognize Israels declaration of independence
Click to expand...


What land and borders were specified in that declaration?


----------



## dblack

Does anyone else keep reading the topic header as "I will not Bowl"? I was thinking maybe it was as screed against The Big Lebowski or something.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that Israel claims a border on Palestine.
> 
> When did Israel acquire that land to be able to claim a border?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement was between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan. Not Palestine. It's not 'Palestines' land .
> *You keep making up this crap that Palestine had to have agreed to giving land to Israel.
> *
> And it is not ISRAEL only that claims the border. It's the U.N as well, and it's on file
> 
> 
> Again, this is not something that is up for discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was a plan for the Palestinians to give land to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan.
> 
> Britain would not transfer that land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The UN Security Council would not transfer the land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate plan.
> 
> Where did the Palestinians get the authority to reject this land transfer if the land was not theirs?
Click to expand...





They never did, as it was the arab league that rejected the partition plan. The only Palestinians recognised in 1948 were the Jews that lived in the mandate. Britain transferred their control of the mandate to the UN who declared the partition plan and Israel instantly made a unilateral declaration of the start of Israel. This was a legal and recognised manner of bringing Israel into existence. The UN had never recognised the legal standing of the filastin people until they were admitted to the UN as observers.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the UN used the term "southernmost tip of Palestine" in its armistice agreement, what were they talking about? What country were they talking about? Whose land was it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armisitice lines were signed in 1949, 30 years BEFORE the Israel Egypt treaty and 45 years before the Israel - Jordan peace treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? How did Israel get Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt?
Click to expand...





 They gave it to Israel under the terms of UN res 242, you see Palestine was never a sovereign nation in the eyes of international law. All it ever was, was a undefined area of the M.E that was carved up and given to the arabs and Jews. The first part to go was the land given to Jordan that ended at the eastern bank of the river Jordan.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was a plan for the Palestinians to give land to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan.
> 
> Britain would not transfer that land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The UN Security Council would not transfer the land without Palestinian approval.
> 
> The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate plan.
> 
> Where did the Palestinians get the authority to reject this land transfer if the land was not theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Land transfer is a matter of real estate. Nothing to do with practicing sovereignty, which Israel did in 1948.
> 
> When I say you made that up, I meant you didn't read it somewhere, it's just your opinion. 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Israel has no land because that is a real estate thing.
Click to expand...





No Israel has land that was set aside for it as a homeland for the Jews by the British and the UN.  A land that had flexible legal borders recognised by the UN and the rest of the civilised world. The people without any land as they have never existed are the filstans


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? How did Israel get Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you don't recognize Israels declaration of independence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land and borders were specified in that declaration?
Click to expand...




None as the borders were still flexible, but the benchmark was the partition plan borders. Then the arab armies attacked and managed to steal portions of Israel in the process, so after the war Israel was smaller than originally planned. The UN decided to waive the "no land gained by war" rule and allowed Jordan, Syria and Egypt to keep the land they had stole.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you don't recognize Israels declaration of independence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land and borders were specified in that declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None as the borders were still flexible, but the benchmark was the partition plan borders. Then the arab armies attacked and managed to steal portions of Israel in the process, so after the war Israel was smaller than originally planned. The UN decided to waive the "no land gained by war" rule and allowed Jordan, Syria and Egypt to keep the land they had stole.
Click to expand...


International borders are flexible?

Do you have a link for that? Under what terms can international borders be changed?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? How did Israel get Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you don't recognize Israels declaration of independence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land and borders were specified in that declaration?
Click to expand...


Israel did not declare borders during their declaration of independence. Which has nothing to do with the fact that they currently have *PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES* with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994).


----------



## toastman

I've already shown you links for Egypts border with Israel, here is the peace treaty that gave Israel a internationally recognized border with Jordan:

A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995

*Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them. *


----------



## toastman

It really doesn't get clearer than that


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  Phoenall,  _et al,_

The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines.  In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty:


A/50/73  S/1995/83  27 January 1995  Treaty with Jordan See Article III

Treaty Document 26 March 1979 State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt See Article II

Because of hostile Arab intervention, multiple wars over time, the arrangement between Lebanon and Israel has a number of facets to it.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land and borders were specified in that declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> None as the borders were still flexible, but the benchmark was the partition plan borders. Then the arab armies attacked and managed to steal portions of Israel in the process, so after the war Israel was smaller than originally planned. The UN decided to waive the "no land gained by war" rule and allowed Jordan, Syria and Egypt to keep the land they had stole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International borders are flexible?
> 
> Do you have a link for that? Under what terms can international borders be changed?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians see what they want to see, relative to the international boundary dispute between Lebanon and Israel.

First to answer the question in a straight forward manner:  International Boundaries change all the time though history using any number of mechanisms.  In the case of Israel, the boundaries were last altered by treaty and, in the case of Lebanon-Israel, by state-to-state recognition brokered through the UN.

Reference:  A/54/914  S/2000/564   12 June 2000   Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General 

If you read the referenced letter, you will see that Lebanon had a concern that the name and the distinction of the border line was an issue.  You will note the following:



			
				Ref LTR from President of Lebanon said:
			
		

> (Insert Item 1) confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel internationally recognized boundaries that have never been in dispute between the two countries.
> 
> (Insert Item #2)  There is an existing international boundary that is not in doubt and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place.
> 
> (Insert Item #3)  The concept of a de facto line is used in the Secretary-Generals report only with reference to the status of the Shaba farmlands. Lebanon was astonished by the attempt to apply the same concept to the Lebanon-Israel boundaries, which is totally incompatible with the Secretary-Generals report and Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Where there are internationally recognized boundaries there can be no de facto line. Indeed, the Secretary-General adopted such a line only where there was ambiguity in the case of the boundaries of the Shaba farmlands.
> 
> _(Signed) *Émile Lahoud*_
> General
> President of the Republic​



Now I invite you all to read the letter in its entirety.  Because the letter expresses the concern by the President of Lebanon, that unscrupulous people might take advantage of the UN ambiguity between the withdrawal line rather than the boundary line in breach of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) calling "for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its *internationally recognized boundaries*."

The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) may, at any time, as outside observer having no standing in the matter and no legal basis in the matter, channeling the scope and nature of the boundary between Israel and Lebanon.  But at the end of the day, the HoAP, has nothing to say about it.  The boundary is what the two states (Lebanon and Israel) want to call it.  At the opening of the 21st Century, it pleases Lebanon to call it an "International Boundary" and they seem to object to it being portrayed by any other party as something otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The filastins wont accept a shared capital, with them it is all or nothing. Leave them another 2 or 3 years and they will start to die out due to overcrowding, disease, starvation and infighting. If they want war then let them declare war and show the world that it is them being intransigent and belligerent. _At the end of the day Jerusalem was 60% Jewish owned in 1948 _before the arab armies tried genocide instead of talking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership by money is not ownership of sovereignty, at the end of the day Jerusalem had been Arab controlled for a millennia...money can't buy you love or nationhood.
> 
> I don't see Israel offering to share, I only see settlement building on others lands. no one on planet Earth has recognized her annexation, not even her greatest ally America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you see is an illusion that does not exist, Jerusalem was not arab controlled for nearly 1200 years, it was owned by the Ottoman empire who sold the property to the Jews so they could administer it for the Ottomans. So it was owned and ruled by the Jews while the arabs were still in the process of migrating to the area.
> What you see as settlement building on others land is actually Jews building on Jewish owned land, paid for by Jewish families prior to the mandate. Land deeds that the British accepted as valid and so used the land ownership as ball park figure to allocate land for the Jewish state. The maps show very little in the way of arab land ownership pre 1948, and anyone can buy a rusty key and claim it fitted the door to their 25 roomed mansion in the middle of Jerusalem
Click to expand...


OK...settled by Palestinian Arabs and ruled by the Islamic Ottomans...The Ottoman's also ruled Greece which joined the Empire voluntarily...Is Greece Greek?

Again Ownership of Land does not change Sovereignty...Stop trying to distort the facts, because we're not all fools on this board.



P.S.

Any peace deal should and must have provision for money reparations for  real-estate losses for every body.


----------



## MHunterB

"Any peace deal should and must have provision for money reparations for real-estate losses for every body. "

As long as you're including in that number the losses suffered by nearly one million refugees who were victims of  the Arab League's conspiracy to ethnically cleanse the rest of the ME of its Jewish citizens, I think that is reasonable.  

The AL nations have gone for decades without repairing the damage they - and only they - have caused in their warmongering against Israel.  If they cede money in place of the land and businesses they stole, I think that would be fair.  ALL parties involved in causing people to be refugees should pay up - including KSA for their part in inciting the Palestinians to continually attack the Israeli people.


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*


Cool, what are they waiting for?


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> OK...settled by Palestinian Arabs and ruled by the Islamic Ottomans...The Ottoman's also ruled Greece which joined the Empire voluntarily...Is Greece Greek?


Is the northern Cyprus greek?


pbel said:


> Again Ownership of Land does not change Sovereignty...Stop trying to distort the facts, because we're not all fools on this board.


Where/when was that "sovereign state of palestine"?


pbel said:


> Any peace deal should and must have provision for money reparations for  real-estate losses for every body.


Is Kerry willing to pay for those bridges and snake oil?


----------



## Mojo2

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
Click to expand...


And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.



> *YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:*
> 
> The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
> Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Mojo2 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.
> 
> I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:*
> 
> The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
> Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The Nazis were also very educated people.

Pbel, Palestinians don't live on a peninsula.  Few of them live in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.
> 
> I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:*
> 
> The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
> Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazis were also very educated people.
> 
> Pbel, Palestinians don't live on a peninsula.  Few of them live in Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...


Keep making a mockery of common sense and Justice by trying to sell the world your Victim Hood...The World Powers all recalled Israeli ambassadors over the continuos land theft of Palestinian lands through settlement building, yesterday.

Frankly I wish America would wash our hands of this thieving state...We have lost many thousands of our children soldiers fighting Israel's enemies...America is self-sufficient in Oil...Let the Europeans deal with the Right Wing Zionists they have a lot more experience than us...


----------



## pbel

Mojo2 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.
> 
> I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:*
> 
> The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
> Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...

The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...

Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability. 

Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?

 The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.


----------



## Mojo2

pbel said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.
> 
> I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:*
> 
> The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
> Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
Click to expand...


Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.

As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):



> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.



The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  Phoenall,  _et al,_
> 
> The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines.  In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty:
> 
> 
> A/50/73  S/1995/83  27 January 1995  Treaty with Jordan See Article III
> 
> Treaty Document 26 March 1979 State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt See Article II
> 
> Because of hostile Arab intervention, multiple wars over time, the arrangement between Lebanon and Israel has a number of facets to it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> None as the borders were still flexible, but the benchmark was the partition plan borders. Then the arab armies attacked and managed to steal portions of Israel in the process, so after the war Israel was smaller than originally planned. The UN decided to waive the "no land gained by war" rule and allowed Jordan, Syria and Egypt to keep the land they had stole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International borders are flexible?
> 
> Do you have a link for that? Under what terms can international borders be changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians see what they want to see, relative to the international boundary dispute between Lebanon and Israel.
> 
> First to answer the question in a straight forward manner:  International Boundaries change all the time though history using any number of mechanisms.  In the case of Israel, the boundaries were last altered by treaty and, in the case of Lebanon-Israel, by state-to-state recognition brokered through the UN.
> 
> Reference:  A/54/914  S/2000/564   12 June 2000   Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> If you read the referenced letter, you will see that Lebanon had a concern that the name and the distinction of the border line was an issue.  You will note the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ref LTR from President of Lebanon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Insert Item 1) confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel &#8220;internationally recognized boundaries&#8221; that have never been in dispute between the two countries.
> 
> (Insert Item #2)  There is an existing international boundary that is not in doubt and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place.
> 
> (Insert Item #3)  The concept of a &#8220;de facto line&#8221; is used in the Secretary-General&#8217;s report only with reference to the status of the Shab&#8217;a farmlands. Lebanon was astonished by the attempt to apply the same concept to the Lebanon-Israel boundaries, which is totally incompatible with the Secretary-General&#8217;s report and Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Where there are &#8220;internationally recognized boundaries&#8221; there can be no &#8220;de facto line&#8221;. Indeed, the Secretary-General adopted such a line only where there was ambiguity in the case of the boundaries of the Shab&#8217;a farmlands.
> 
> _(Signed) *Émile Lahoud*_
> General
> President of the Republic​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I invite you all to read the letter in its entirety.  Because the letter expresses the concern by the President of Lebanon, that unscrupulous people might take advantage of the UN ambiguity between the &#8220;withdrawal line&#8221; rather than the &#8220;boundary line&#8221; in breach of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) calling "for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its *internationally recognized boundaries*."
> 
> The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) may, at any time, as outside observer having no standing in the matter and no legal basis in the matter, channeling the scope and nature of the boundary between Israel and Lebanon.  But at the end of the day, the HoAP, has nothing to say about it.  The boundary is what the two states (Lebanon and Israel) want to call it.  At the opening of the 21st Century, it pleases Lebanon to call it an "International Boundary" and they seem to object to it being portrayed by any other party as something otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

All this but you did not answer my question. "Under what terms can international borders be changed?"

You posted S/RES/425 (1978) of 19 March 1978



> Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;



This is about Lebanon's territorial integrity inside Lebanon's international borders. It says nothing about any Israeli territory or borders.

The international boundaries between Lebanon and Palestine were defined by post WWI treaties. The only "border" between Lebanon and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. (and later the "blue line" but still no border) This line did not separate a place called Israel from Lebanon but merely stated a line that neither *military forces* were to cross.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mojo2 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.
> 
> I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
Click to expand...


Why no mention of the Jerusalemite Christians? They are being kicked out by Israel too. What is the story about that?


----------



## pbel

Mojo2 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.
> 
> I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
Click to expand...


Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...

Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!


----------



## P F Tinmore

pbel said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
Click to expand...




> Israel d0oes not seem to understand the world community that this is *against International Law...*


We will see no peace in Israel/Palestine until we see some people in jail.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "_The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..._"


Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.

From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.

Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.

Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.

Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.

Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.

Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.

Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney bitch and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.

When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.

Sour grapes and sore losers.

And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.

It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..._"
> 
> 
> 
> Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.
> 
> From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.
> 
> Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.
> 
> Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.
> 
> Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.
> 
> Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.
> 
> Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.
> 
> Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney bitch and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.
> 
> When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.
> 
> Sour grapes and sore losers.
> 
> And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.
> 
> It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.
Click to expand...


Hogwash.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..._"
> 
> 
> 
> Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.
> 
> From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.
> 
> Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.
> 
> Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.
> 
> Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.
> 
> Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.
> 
> Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.
> 
> Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney bitch and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.
> 
> When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.
> 
> Sour grapes and sore losers.
> 
> And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.
> 
> It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
Click to expand...


Most of what you say is hogwash, so when you tell somebody else, it really means nothing


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..._"
> 
> 
> 
> Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.
> 
> From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.
> 
> Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.
> 
> Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.
> 
> Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.
> 
> Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.
> 
> Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.
> 
> Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney bitch and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.
> 
> When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.
> 
> Sour grapes and sore losers.
> 
> And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.
> 
> It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
Click to expand...

Hogwash?

How so?

Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, internationally-recognized nation-state in 1948 at the termination of the Mandate?

If the answer to that is 'No' - for all practical purposes - then the post as NOT hogwash, but, rather, accurately describes a political vaccum which underwent a division of territory.

Don't unincorporated lands oftentimes set up as a new polity, or divide into factions wanting one solution or another?

And, were the Muslim-Arab Palestinians not 'bested' by the Jewish Palestinians, in that the Jews successfully divided-up the land in order to put part of it under their own control, as they set up as a new polity (the State of Israel), despite the objections of the Muslim faction?

Wherein lies the hogwash?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.
> 
> From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.
> 
> Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.
> 
> Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.
> 
> Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.
> 
> Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.
> 
> Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.
> 
> Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney bitch and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.
> 
> When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.
> 
> Sour grapes and sore losers.
> 
> And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.
> 
> It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, internationally-recognized nation-state in 1948 at the termination of the Mandate?
> 
> If the answer to that is 'No' - for all practical purposes - then the post as NOT hogwash, but, rather, accurately describes a political vaccum which underwent a division of territory.
> 
> Don't unincorporated lands oftentimes set up as a new polity, or divide into factions wanting one solution or another?
> 
> And, were the Muslim-Arab Palestinians not 'bested' by the Jewish Palestinians, in that the Jews successfully divided-up the land in order to put part of it under their own control, as they set up as a new polity (the State of Israel)?
> 
> Wherein lies the hogwash?
Click to expand...




> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, blah, blah, blah.



Not required.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, internationally-recognized nation-state in 1948 at the termination of the Mandate?
> 
> If the answer to that is 'No' - for all practical purposes - then the post as NOT hogwash, but, rather, accurately describes a political vaccum which underwent a division of territory.
> 
> Don't unincorporated lands oftentimes set up as a new polity, or divide into factions wanting one solution or another?
> 
> And, were the Muslim-Arab Palestinians not 'bested' by the Jewish Palestinians, in that the Jews successfully divided-up the land in order to put part of it under their own control, as they set up as a new polity (the State of Israel)?
> 
> Wherein lies the hogwash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not required.
Click to expand...


Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"

LOL


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Not required._"


Incorrect. You cannot advance and sustain a 'prior claim' of statehood status without such attributes.

And you've done nothing (so far) to substantiate your protestation of 'hogwash', with regard to that post.

Substance, Tinny... substance.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why no mention of the Jerusalemite Christians? They are being kicked out by Israel too. What is the story about that?
Click to expand...


That is not true.  If you'd ever visit Jerusalem once in your life, you'd see Christian monks, nuns and priests all walking around in the different costumes/habits of their various denominations.  Wonderful sight!  There is also a charming Armenian Christian quarter in the Old City.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, internationally-recognized nation-state in 1948 at the termination of the Mandate?
> 
> If the answer to that is 'No' - for all practical purposes - then the post as NOT hogwash, but, rather, accurately describes a political vaccum which underwent a division of territory.
> 
> Don't unincorporated lands oftentimes set up as a new polity, or divide into factions wanting one solution or another?
> 
> And, were the Muslim-Arab Palestinians not 'bested' by the Jewish Palestinians, in that the Jews successfully divided-up the land in order to put part of it under their own control, as they set up as a new polity (the State of Israel)?
> 
> Wherein lies the hogwash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


No I didn't.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
Click to expand...


Well it doesn;t really matter, because at the end of the day, Palestine STILL wasn't a country in 1948, and your constant denial makes you look like a 9 year old


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, internationally-recognized nation-state in 1948 at the termination of the Mandate?
> 
> If the answer to that is 'No' - for all practical purposes - then the post as NOT hogwash, but, rather, accurately describes a political vaccum which underwent a division of territory.
> 
> Don't unincorporated lands oftentimes set up as a new polity, or divide into factions wanting one solution or another?
> 
> And, were the Muslim-Arab Palestinians not 'bested' by the Jewish Palestinians, in that the Jews successfully divided-up the land in order to put part of it under their own control, as they set up as a new polity (the State of Israel)?
> 
> Wherein lies the hogwash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not required.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...

An interesting and ironic and comical development...

Implicit admission of 'Nonexistent Status', with regard to statehood.

In light of the context surrounding the remark, it's just as powerful as an explicit admission.

I'd consider bookmarking the post (or your own response, which he can't edit) for future use.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not required.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine" LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I didn't.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, mine good colleague.

Yes, you did.

As outlined in my Post #147...



toastman said:


> An interesting and ironic and comical development...



Thank you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why no mention of the Jerusalemite Christians? They are being kicked out by Israel too. What is the story about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.  If you'd ever visit Jerusalem once in your life, you'd see Christian monks, nuns and priests all walking around in the different costumes/habits of their various denominations.  Wonderful sight!  There is also a charming Armenian Christian quarter in the Old City.
Click to expand...


And Christians are considered foreigners by Israel. They can, and do, have their "permits" revoked at Israel's whims and they can no longer live in their hometown. They can, and do, have their homes bulldozed at Israel's whims. Christians in the area are regularly denied access to their holy sites.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine" LOL
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Au contraire, mine good colleague.
> 
> Yes, you did.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Where?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire, mine good colleague. Yes, you did. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where?
Click to expand...

Read my post No. 147... an implicit admission ( '_Not required_' ) within the given context carries all the power of an explicit admission.

Sooner or later you were bound to slip up.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why no mention of the Jerusalemite Christians? They are being kicked out by Israel too. What is the story about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.  If you'd ever visit Jerusalem once in your life, you'd see Christian monks, nuns and priests all walking around in the different costumes/habits of their various denominations.  Wonderful sight!  There is also a charming Armenian Christian quarter in the Old City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Christians are considered foreigners by Israel. They can, and do, have their "permits" revoked at Israel's whims and they can no longer live in their hometown. They can, and do, have their homes bulldozed at Israel's whims. Christians in the area are regularly denied access to their holy sites.
Click to expand...


Last year, 2013, saw the highest ratio of Christian Arab volunteers in the Israeli army to date.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  Phoenall,  _et al,_
> 
> The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines.  In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty:
> 
> 
> A/50/73  S/1995/83  27 January 1995  Treaty with Jordan See Article III
> 
> Treaty Document 26 March 1979 State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt See Article II
> 
> Because of hostile Arab intervention, multiple wars over time, the arrangement between Lebanon and Israel has a number of facets to it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International borders are flexible?
> 
> Do you have a link for that? Under what terms can international borders be changed?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians see what they want to see, relative to the international boundary dispute between Lebanon and Israel.
> 
> First to answer the question in a straight forward manner:  International Boundaries change all the time though history using any number of mechanisms.  In the case of Israel, the boundaries were last altered by treaty and, in the case of Lebanon-Israel, by state-to-state recognition brokered through the UN.
> 
> Reference:  A/54/914  S/2000/564   12 June 2000   Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General
> 
> If you read the referenced letter, you will see that Lebanon had a concern that the name and the distinction of the border line was an issue.  You will note the following:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I invite you all to read the letter in its entirety.  Because the letter expresses the concern by the President of Lebanon, that unscrupulous people might take advantage of the UN ambiguity between the withdrawal line rather than the boundary line in breach of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) calling "for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its *internationally recognized boundaries*."
> 
> The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) may, at any time, as outside observer having no standing in the matter and no legal basis in the matter, channeling the scope and nature of the boundary between Israel and Lebanon.  But at the end of the day, the HoAP, has nothing to say about it.  The boundary is what the two states (Lebanon and Israel) want to call it.  At the opening of the 21st Century, it pleases Lebanon to call it an "International Boundary" and they seem to object to it being portrayed by any other party as something otherwise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this but you did not answer my question. "Under what terms can international borders be changed?"
> 
> You posted S/RES/425 (1978) of 19 March 1978
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about Lebanon's territorial integrity inside Lebanon's international borders. It says nothing about any Israeli territory or borders.
> 
> The international boundaries between Lebanon and Palestine were defined by post WWI treaties. The only "border" between Lebanon and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. (and later the "blue line" but still no border) This line did not separate a place called Israel from Lebanon but merely stated a line that neither *military forces* were to cross.
Click to expand...




Here we go again THERE WERE NO INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES FOR PALESTINE. You see the country/nation of Palestine has never existed, even the filastins admit this as a fact. Now under res242 Israel was supposed to agree mutually respected borders with its neighbours, and there is no mention of Palestine whatsoever, which they have done to a certain extent. So unless there have been secret talks the situation is clear there has never been a country/nation of Palestine so it cant have international borders.

 Here is a 1921 map showing the extent of Palestine and if you look you see that Israel is not included.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why no mention of the Jerusalemite Christians? They are being kicked out by Israel too. What is the story about that?
Click to expand...




 How about you produce a link from a reputable and unbiased source that shows this ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
Click to expand...





Yes and you bombed the wrong side leaving the true land owners homeless and starving, while the muslims from the M.E carved up the land for themselves. Have you learnt nothing from what happened in Yugoslavia


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not required.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting and ironic and comical development...
> 
> Implicit admission of 'Nonexistent Status', with regard to statehood.
> 
> In light of the context surrounding the remark, it's just as powerful as an explicit admission.
> 
> I'd consider bookmarking the post (or your own response, which he can't edit) for future use.
Click to expand...


That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.



> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel



When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> Keep making a mockery of common sense and Justice by trying to sell the world your Victim Hood...The World Powers all recalled Israeli ambassadors over the continuos land theft of Palestinian lands through settlement building, yesterday. Frankly I wish America would wash our hands of this thieving state...We have lost many thousands of our children soldiers fighting Israel's enemies...America is self-sufficient in Oil...Let the Europeans deal with the Right Wing Zionists they have a lot more experience than us...


Yeah, right.


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...


It isn't surprising - "the islamic nations" are stuck in the year 1100, of course.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> This is about Lebanon's territorial integrity inside Lebanon's international borders. It says nothing about any Israeli territory or borders.


Funny. Lebanon has no borders!


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and you bombed the wrong side leaving the true land owners homeless and starving, while the muslims from the M.E carved up the land for themselves. Have you learnt nothing from what happened in Yugoslavia
Click to expand...


I see, right wing Zionists would have preferred the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting and ironic and comical development...
> 
> Implicit admission of 'Nonexistent Status', with regard to statehood.
> 
> In light of the context surrounding the remark, it's just as powerful as an explicit admission.
> 
> I'd consider bookmarking the post (or your own response, which he can't edit) for future use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.
Click to expand...


The paleatinians declared independence in 1988

It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting and ironic and comical development...
> 
> Implicit admission of 'Nonexistent Status', with regard to statehood.
> 
> In light of the context surrounding the remark, it's just as powerful as an explicit admission.
> 
> I'd consider bookmarking the post (or your own response, which he can't edit) for future use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
Click to expand...


A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> We will see no peace in Israel/Palestine until we see some people in jail.


Sitting in jail has become a cool palistanan occupation as it is - Abu Mazen salary, free meals, free higher education, the Red Cross hypocrites at their service, etc., - and no peace so far, so, the point has no merit, of course.


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> I see, right wing Zionists would have proffered the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.


What does this drivel mean?


----------



## pbel

docmauser1 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have proffered the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this drivel mean?
Click to expand...


That people who support the expulsion of the Palestinians from their Homelands are Fascists, Mauser.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are something.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.  

The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound. It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.



Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.


----------



## Mojo2

pbel said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...
> 
> The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...
> 
> Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.
> 
> Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?
> 
> The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."
> 
> This pattern has three main implications.
> 
> First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."
> 
> Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.
> 
> Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the *expropriation of land* *from a helpless defenseless population*...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
Click to expand...


You have swallowed one side's story which appeals to your emotional nature. 

But when you look at the facts and the history, the Jews have as much right to be there (as the state of Israel), as any other party.

The Jews have a 5,000 year uninterrupted presence in the disputed area.

How can they be considered interlopers?

If you remove from the argument everyone who is uninformed and then take away the Muslim zealots and then put a sock in the mouths of those who are swayed by the trumped up tear jerking propaganda, you would be able to find a solution to this conflict.

And I say the same thing about posters who weigh in on this issue.

You are arguing without knowing the PERTINENT facts.

Maybe you are a zealot. Maybe you are an anti-Semitic bigot. Maybe you have  been swayed by the drama and pathos produced by the Palestinian propaganda machine...their propaganda industry maybe you just stopped researching when you happened upon a narrative that appealed to your sloth or your emotional nature.

In any event, you are mistaken.

Expropriation of land? No, just a recognition of Jewish sovereignty where no Muslim nation existed.

From a helpless defenseless population? No, upon recognition of Israeli statehood FIVE of Israel's Arab/Muslim neighbors declared war against the fledgling state. If they had won there might be no state of Israel today. They lost. And Israel won. But Israel did not deport Arabs. Instead, they gave them the rights of Israeli citizenship. More than the Arabs afford Jews in Arab countries. More than Muslim LAW allows as even a possibility to Jews or any non-Muslims.

International law is exactly what made Israel a state.

Yet, the Arabs/Muslims gave not one shit about International law when it came to recognizing Israel and respecting it's right to exist.

And make no mistake. American influence helps keep Israel from settling this dispute once and for all...THEIR WAY. It's like Israel is a pit bull and America has some control over whether the dog remains under control or is unleashed to do as it will.

Trust me, you don't want America to lose influence over Israel.

Although, I must commend Israel on always adhering to high ideals of humanity in dealing with their hostile, violent Arab/Muslim populations and neighbors.

You may cite exceptions and occasional lapses in following these high ideals, but the standard is good. fair. And they struggle with adhering to it.

What more can you ask?

Israel has a right to exist in peace.

Arabs and Muslims would deny them this.

What else can a responsible, compassionate and strong nation do than what the Israelis do?

If you are objective and fair, you will say, "nothing."


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mojo2 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.
> 
> As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the *expropriation of land* *from a helpless defenseless population*...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have swallowed one side's story which appeals to your emotional nature.
> 
> But when you look at the facts and the history, the Jews have as much right to be there (as the state of Israel), as any other party.
> 
> The Jews have a 5,000 year uninterrupted presence in the disputed area.
> 
> How can they be considered interlopers?
> 
> If you remove from the argument everyone who is uninformed and then take away the Muslim zealots and then put a sock in the mouths of those who are swayed by the trumped up tear jerking propaganda, you would be able to find a solution to this conflict.
> 
> And I say the same thing about posters who weigh in on this issue.
> 
> You are arguing without knowing the PERTINENT facts.
> 
> Maybe you are a zealot. Maybe you are an anti-Semitic bigot. Maybe you have  been swayed by the drama and pathos produced by the Palestinian propaganda machine...their propaganda industry maybe you just stopped researching when you happened upon a narrative that appealed to your sloth or your emotional nature.
> 
> In any event, you are mistaken.
> 
> Expropriation of land? No, just a recognition of Jewish sovereignty where no Muslim nation existed.
> 
> From a helpless defenseless population? No, upon recognition of Israeli statehood FIVE of Israel's Arab/Muslim neighbors declared war against the fledgling state. If they had won there might be no state of Israel today. They lost. And Israel won. But Israel did not deport Arabs. Instead, they gave them the rights of Israeli citizenship. More than the Arabs afford Jews in Arab countries. More than Muslim LAW allows as even a possibility to Jews or any non-Muslims.
> 
> International law is exactly what made Israel a state.
> 
> Yet, the Arabs/Muslims gave not one shit about International law when it came to recognizing Israel and respecting it's right to exist.
> 
> And make no mistake. American influence helps keep Israel from settling this dispute once and for all...THEIR WAY. It's like Israel is a pit bull and America has some control over whether the dog remains under control or is unleashed to do as it will.
> 
> Trust me, you don't want America to lose influence over Israel.
> 
> Although, I must commend Israel on always adhering to high ideals of humanity in dealing with their hostile, violent Arab/Muslim populations and neighbors.
> 
> You may cite exceptions and occasional lapses in following these high ideals, but the standard is good. fair. And they struggle with adhering to it.
> 
> What more can you ask?
> 
> Israel has a right to exist in peace.
> 
> Arabs and Muslims would deny them this.
> 
> What else can a responsible, compassionate and strong nation do than what the Israelis do?
> 
> If you are objective and fair, you will say, "nothing."
Click to expand...


It is true that the Jews have as much right as anyone. However, nowhere in any of the post war treaties or the mandate was an *exclusive right* or *Jewish state* mentioned.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I must disagree.  Arafat's declaration in 1988 is well-known.  The declaration in late 1948 is little-known.  It came too late, no one knew about it, and it wasn't really serious.  Anyway, instead of constantly debating the past, one should look at what's happening now.  This week Britain, France, Italy and Spain told off their Israeli ambassadors.  This anti-Semitism will not help to bring peace at all.


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have proffered the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this drivel mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That people who support the expulsion of the Palestinians from their Homelands are Fascists, Mauser.
Click to expand...

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." said Churchill.
Looks like those major arab settlers expelled themselves from their respective "homelands", of course.


----------



## Mojo2

P F Tinmore said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the *expropriation of land* *from a helpless defenseless population*...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have swallowed one side's story which appeals to your emotional nature.
> 
> But when you look at the facts and the history, the Jews have as much right to be there (as the state of Israel), as any other party.
> 
> The Jews have a 5,000 year uninterrupted presence in the disputed area.
> 
> How can they be considered interlopers?
> 
> If you remove from the argument everyone who is uninformed and then take away the Muslim zealots and then put a sock in the mouths of those who are swayed by the trumped up tear jerking propaganda, you would be able to find a solution to this conflict.
> 
> And I say the same thing about posters who weigh in on this issue.
> 
> You are arguing without knowing the PERTINENT facts.
> 
> Maybe you are a zealot. Maybe you are an anti-Semitic bigot. Maybe you have  been swayed by the drama and pathos produced by the Palestinian propaganda machine...their propaganda industry maybe you just stopped researching when you happened upon a narrative that appealed to your sloth or your emotional nature.
> 
> In any event, you are mistaken.
> 
> Expropriation of land? No, just a recognition of Jewish sovereignty where no Muslim nation existed.
> 
> From a helpless defenseless population? No, upon recognition of Israeli statehood FIVE of Israel's Arab/Muslim neighbors declared war against the fledgling state. If they had won there might be no state of Israel today. They lost. And Israel won. But Israel did not deport Arabs. Instead, they gave them the rights of Israeli citizenship. More than the Arabs afford Jews in Arab countries. More than Muslim LAW allows as even a possibility to Jews or any non-Muslims.
> 
> International law is exactly what made Israel a state.
> 
> Yet, the Arabs/Muslims gave not one shit about International law when it came to recognizing Israel and respecting it's right to exist.
> 
> And make no mistake. American influence helps keep Israel from settling this dispute once and for all...THEIR WAY. It's like Israel is a pit bull and America has some control over whether the dog remains under control or is unleashed to do as it will.
> 
> Trust me, you don't want America to lose influence over Israel.
> 
> Although, I must commend Israel on always adhering to high ideals of humanity in dealing with their hostile, violent Arab/Muslim populations and neighbors.
> 
> You may cite exceptions and occasional lapses in following these high ideals, but the standard is good. fair. And they struggle with adhering to it.
> 
> What more can you ask?
> 
> Israel has a right to exist in peace.
> 
> Arabs and Muslims would deny them this.
> 
> What else can a responsible, compassionate and strong nation do than what the Israelis do?
> 
> If you are objective and fair, you will say, "nothing."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that the Jews have as much right as anyone. However, nowhere in any of the post war treaties or the mandate was an *exclusive right* or *Jewish state* mentioned.
Click to expand...


The exclusive right was granted by God, himself.

Thousands of years before the birth of the Prophet Mohammad.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHqTR94TBIo]Exodus (This Land is Mine with Lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]

And the Prophet Mohammad never even set foot in Jerusalem.

He visited it in a _ dream._


----------



## docmauser1

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> You are something. ...


"Good morning" is in order, of course.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must disagree.  Arafat's declaration in 1988 is well-known.  The declaration in late 1948 is little-known.  It came too late, no one knew about it, and it wasn't really serious.  Anyway, instead of constantly debating the past, one should look at what's happening now.  This week Britain, France, Italy and Spain told off their Israeli ambassadors.  This anti-Semitism will not help to bring peace at all.
Click to expand...


ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.


True - palistanians didn't exist back then.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say the Palestinians didn't declare independence in 1988 ?

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

ForeverYoung436 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must disagree.  Arafat's declaration in 1988 is well-known.  The declaration in late 1948 is little-known.  It came too late, no one knew about it, and it wasn't really serious.  Anyway, instead of constantly debating the past, one should look at what's happening now.  This week Britain, France, Italy and Spain told off their Israeli ambassadors.  This anti-Semitism will not help to bring peace at all.
Click to expand...


Rocco knows about the declaration in 1988

It is Tinmore who is full of shit and  doesn't know.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound. It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.
Click to expand...


Actually his post is relevant, while yours is more lies. 

The so called 1948 DOI was unrecognized, and came too little too late. 

Israels DOI came before that, and was RECOGNIZED by the U.N as well was MANY countries.

This is a very simple matter that a monkey could understand.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> ARTICLE 3 The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...


Cool, so, who was that pasha, effendi, shakh, sultan, bei, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say the Palestinians didn't declare independence in 1988 ?
> 
> Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Where did I say that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound. It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually his post is relevant, while yours is more lies.
> 
> *The so called 1948 DOI was unrecognized,* and came too little too late.
> 
> Israels DOI came before that, and was RECOGNIZED by the U.N as well was MANY countries.
> 
> This is a very simple matter that a monkey could understand.
Click to expand...


ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Some Palestinian claims have some merit.



pbel said:


> That people who support the expulsion of the Palestinians from their Homelands are Fascists, Mauser.


*(COMMENT)*

The refugee column in 1948, is not the result of a single action or cause.  It was a result of a number of actions taken by a number of parties for a number of reasons.

Part of the Refugee Issue was the Order to Leave:
The Reference;



Part of the Refugee Issue is explained by the natural migration of the population away from the battlefield.

Part of the Refugee Issue is explained by potential combatants pushing hostile populations out of the rear area to prevent stay-behind operations.
There are a number of reasons for the movement of refugees toward the areas already infiltrated by the Arab Legion prior to May 1948. 

Everyone of the regional players had a hand in the refugee trail.  The real issue is that the Arab Legion expected, _given the fact that they had pre-positioned forces already inside the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area), five sets of forces (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq) ready to jump across the FEBA and attack, as well as --- fifth columnists [Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)] inside the FEBA --- all set to simultaneously,_ a swift victory and a defeat over the Israeli defenders; which would allow the refugees to return to their homes quickly.  They never envisioned a tactical defeat.

Remember, the returning HoAP already made this oath, fresh at the time:



			
				The Delegation of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine said:
			
		

> The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child.
> 
> I beg to remain, etc.
> /s/ Isa Nakhleh
> Representative of the
> Arab Higher Committee​_*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> ARTICLE 3 The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...


Cool, so, who was that pasha, effendi, shakh, sultan, bei, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine"?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Don't be so foolish!



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually his post is relevant, while yours is more lies.
> 
> *The so called 1948 DOI was unrecognized,* and came too little too late.
> 
> Israels DOI came before that, and was RECOGNIZED by the U.N as well was MANY countries.
> 
> This is a very simple matter that a monkey could understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 3
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If you check with the Treaty Commission, you'll notice this is a regional agreement that pertains to the "Americas" and not the Middle East.  It is only signed by members of the Organization of American States.

Secondly, and most importantly, no one has the right to stand-up and take a country away from another just by declaration.  The Arabs, after the fact, cannot stand-up and say that their belated declaration can take precedence over the Israeli Declaration.  Even the 1933 Convention does not permit that.  Especially since the Israeli Declaration came after General Assembly resolution and followed the recommendation and implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't be so foolish!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually his post is relevant, while yours is more lies.
> 
> *The so called 1948 DOI was unrecognized,* and came too little too late.
> 
> Israels DOI came before that, and was RECOGNIZED by the U.N as well was MANY countries.
> 
> This is a very simple matter that a monkey could understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 3
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you check with the Treaty Commission, you'll notice this is a regional agreement that pertains to the "Americas" and not the Middle East.  It is only signed by members of the Organization of American States.
Click to expand...


This treaty did not create that law, it merely reiterated existing international norms. There is virtual unanimous recognition of that law worldwide.



> Secondly, and most importantly, no one has the right to stand-up and take a country away from another just by declaration.  The Arabs, after the fact, cannot stand-up and say that their belated declaration can take precedence over the Israeli Declaration.  Even the 1933 Convention does not permit that.  Especially since the Israeli Declaration came after General Assembly resolution and followed the recommendation and implementation process.



You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.

Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't be so foolish!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 3
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you check with the Treaty Commission, you'll notice this is a regional agreement that pertains to the "Americas" and not the Middle East.  It is only signed by members of the Organization of American States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This treaty did not create that law, it merely reiterated existing international norms. There is virtual unanimous recognition of that law worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, and most importantly, no one has the right to stand-up and take a country away from another just by declaration.  The Arabs, after the fact, cannot stand-up and say that their belated declaration can take precedence over the Israeli Declaration.  Even the 1933 Convention does not permit that.  Especially since the Israeli Declaration came after General Assembly resolution and followed the recommendation and implementation process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that *Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states* according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-------------------

In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
------------------

...DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
---------------------

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The Mandate of Palestine had borders artificially set by the Allied Powers.  (AGREED)



P F Tinmore said:


> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.


*(COMMENT)*

But there was no State of Palestine with independence and sovereignty on its own.   It was former enemy territory held in trust, to be administered and subject to a disposition to be determined by the Allied Powers through the Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.  

The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was part of the disposition; established inside the former Mandate Territory (named Palestine by the Allied Powers) pursuant to a Partition Plan approved by the General Assembly.

The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was not established inside Palestinian Borders, because there was no such thing; only the Mandate of Palestine which was something much larger than discussed today and included Transjordan.  The Hashemite Kingdom was established first from the Mandate of Palestine, then Israel.  The Arab Palestinian remnants declined to establish the third Arab State under the Partition Plan until November 1988.  Until then, the Arab Palestinian remnants had no recognized sovereignty over any territory in the Region.

Palestine DID NOT declared independence inside its own borders; because it had no borders.  Until the termination of the Mandate, the adjacent-surrounding nations held common borders with the Mandatory over the Mandate of Palestine (UK) and not the Palestinians.  On the termination of the Mandate, the power and authority of the Mandatory passed to the UN Palestine Commission by instruction of the UN and under supervision of the Security Council.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## abu afak

pbel said:


> ....
> Lying again....
> Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Main article:.....


So aside form being a Nazi sympathizer with all the antisemitic trimmings... what has Abbas said about the situation?

*"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, Imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and Threw them into Prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe,*_ as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The ARAB States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did Not Recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is Regrettable"._ 

- by *Abu Mazen*, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, March 1976 

`


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Mandate of Palestine had borders artificially set by the Allied Powers.  (AGREED)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But there was no State of Palestine with independence and sovereignty on its own.   It was former enemy territory held in trust, to be administered and subject to a disposition to be determined by the Allied Powers through the Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was part of the disposition; established inside the former Mandate Territory (named Palestine by the Allied Powers) pursuant to a Partition Plan approved by the General Assembly.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was not established inside Palestinian Borders, because there was no such thing; only the Mandate of Palestine which was something much larger than discussed today and included Transjordan.  The Hashemite Kingdom was established first from the Mandate of Palestine, then Israel.  The Arab Palestinian remnants declined to establish the third Arab State under the Partition Plan until November 1988.  Until then, the Arab Palestinian remnants had no recognized sovereignty over any territory in the Region.
> 
> Palestine DID NOT declared independence inside its own borders; because it had no borders.  Until the termination of the Mandate, the adjacent-surrounding nations held common borders with the Mandatory over the Mandate of Palestine (UK) and not the Palestinians.  On the termination of the Mandate, the power and authority of the Mandatory passed to the UN Palestine Commission by instruction of the UN and under supervision of the Security Council.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Your post is based on false premise. The mandate had no borders. It was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's borders. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there within its international borders. This was still true in 1949.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is a unsound trail of bread crumbs.



P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't be so foolish!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you check with the Treaty Commission, you'll notice this is a regional agreement that pertains to the "Americas" and not the Middle East.  It is only signed by members of the Organization of American States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This treaty did not create that law, it merely reiterated existing international norms. There is virtual unanimous recognition of that law worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that *Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states* according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> -------------------
> 
> In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that *Palestine was a State*, though provisionally under guardianship.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> ------------------
> 
> ...DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> ---------------------
> 
> ARTICLE 3
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Wikipedia is NOT an official interpretation of the events.  But even if it was, it clearly states:

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers.

Again, you are using a Regional Treaty (Signatories limited to the Organization of American States) and not applicable to the Middle East.

As for the Arbitration, we discussed this last November in Post #68.  This is a civil suit in which the UK _(as the effective successor government under the Mandate)_ was held accountable for a monetary claim, and not Turkey and not even considering the Palestinians.



> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The problem with some sources is that you don't always get the intent.
> 
> _*Reference:*_ File E. c. V.  Docket VI. 2.  Judgment No. 5  26 March 1925  The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions  -  Greece v. Britain  Judgment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FOR THESE REASONS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That the concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis under the Agreements signed on January 27th, 1914, between him and the City of Jerusalem, regarding certain works to be carried out at Jerusalem, are valid;
> 
> That the existence, for a certain space of time, of a right on the part of M. Rutenberg to require the annulment of the aforesaid concessions of M. Mavrommatis was not in conformity with the international obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine;
> That no loss to M. Mavrommatis, resulting from this circumstance, has been proved;
> That therefore the Greek Government's claim for an indemnity must be dismissed;
> 2. That Article 4 of the Protocol signed at Lausanne on July 23rd, 1923, concerning certain concessions granted in the Ottoman Empire, is applicable to the above-mentioned concessions granted to M. Mavrommatis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. *It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. *In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Your claim is not valid or sound.  It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate.  The interpretation comes from:
> 
> Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650652​
> Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate.  While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.
> 
> I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments.  In the 1920's and 1930's.  For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory.  And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."
> 
> The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment.  It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions.  In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, no international court has recognized the Palestinians as having the accountability of a government prior to November 1988.
> 
> I offer the ICJ Link above for you to read the actual Judgement #5.
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Again, you are using a Regional Treaty (Signatories limited to the Organization of American States) and not applicable to the Middle East.



Montevideo Convention, in full Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States,  agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 (and entering into force the following year),* that established the standard definition of a state under international law.*

Montevideo Convention (international agreement [1933]) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, I believe you to be mistaken.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate of Palestine had borders artificially set by the Allied Powers.  (AGREED)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But there was no State of Palestine with independence and sovereignty on its own.   It was former enemy territory held in trust, to be administered and subject to a disposition to be determined by the Allied Powers through the Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was part of the disposition; established inside the former Mandate Territory (named Palestine by the Allied Powers) pursuant to a Partition Plan approved by the General Assembly.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was not established inside Palestinian Borders, because there was no such thing; only the Mandate of Palestine which was something much larger than discussed today and included Transjordan.  The Hashemite Kingdom was established first from the Mandate of Palestine, then Israel.  The Arab Palestinian remnants declined to establish the third Arab State under the Partition Plan until November 1988.  Until then, the Arab Palestinian remnants had no recognized sovereignty over any territory in the Region.
> 
> Palestine DID NOT declared independence inside its own borders; because it had no borders.  Until the termination of the Mandate, the adjacent-surrounding nations held common borders with the Mandatory over the Mandate of Palestine (UK) and not the Palestinians.  On the termination of the Mandate, the power and authority of the Mandatory passed to the UN Palestine Commission by instruction of the UN and under supervision of the Security Council.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is based on false premise. The mandate had no borders. It was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's borders. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there within its international borders. This was still true in 1949.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You need to read the Treaty carefully.



SECTION VII. SYRIA said:


> *ARTICLE 94.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.
> 
> Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> A Commission shall be constituted within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line described in Article 27, II (2) and (3). This Commission will be composed of three members nominated by France, Great Britain and Italy respectively, and one member nominated by Turkey; it will be assisted by a representative of Syria for the Syrian frontier, and by a representative of Mesopotamia for the Mesopotamian frontier.
> 
> The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.​
> *ARTICLE 95.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, *the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers,* to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920



The Treaty was aligned to fit the earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement which was broad scope arrangement.  Under the Treaty, there were no boundaries for Palestine.  It was a territory defined by the Mandatory.  The Treaty said:



			
				Article 27 - PART II.  FRONTIERS OF TURKEY said:
			
		

> 2. With Syria:
> From a point to be chosen on the eastern bank of the outlet of the Hassan Dede, about 3 kilometres north-west of Karatash Bu- run, north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 1 kilometre north of Babeli, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Karatash; thence to Kesik Kale, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 15 kilometres east-southeast of Karsbazar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Kara Tepe;
> thence to the bend in the Djaihun Irmak situated west of Duldul Dagh, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence in a general south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on Emir Musi Dagh about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Giaour Geul a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the railway, and leaving Duldul Dagh to Syria;
> thence eastwards to a point to be chosen about 5 kilometres north of Urfa a generally straight line from west to east to be hxed on the ground passing north of the roads connecting the towns of Bagh- che, Aintab, Biridjik, and Urfa and leaving the last three named towns to Syria;
> thence eastwards to the south-western extremity of the bend in the Tigris about 6 kilometres north of Azekh (27 kilometres west of Djezire-ibn-Omar), a generally straight line from west to east to be fixed on the ground leaving the town of Mardin to Syria;
> thence to a point to be chosen on the Tigris between the point of confluence of the Khabur Su with the Tigris and the bend in the Tigris situated about 10 kilometres north of this point,
> the course of the Tigris downstream, leaving the island on which is situated the town of Djezire-ibn-Omar to Syria.
> 
> 3. With Mesopotamia:
> Thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, a line to be fixed on the ground;
> thence eastwards to the point where it meets the frontier between Turkey and Persia,
> the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass south of Amadia.
> 
> 4. On the East and the North East:
> From the point above defined to the Black Sea, the existing frontier between Turkey and Persia, then the former frontier between Turkey and Russia, subject to the provisions of Article 89.
> 
> 5. The Black Sea.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920



The Mandatory defined "Palestine" and not the regional indigenous population.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

docmauser1 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this drivel mean?
> 
> 
> 
> That people who support the expulsion of the Palestinians from their Homelands are Fascists, Mauser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population." said Churchill.
> Looks like those major arab settlers expelled themselves from their respective "homelands", of course.
Click to expand...


"Zionists have been stealing my cheese for centuries!" Mickey Mouse. Of course.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't be so foolish!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 3
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you check with the Treaty Commission, you'll notice this is a regional agreement that pertains to the "Americas" and not the Middle East.  It is only signed by members of the Organization of American States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This treaty did not create that law, it merely reiterated existing international norms. There is virtual unanimous recognition of that law worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, and most importantly, no one has the right to stand-up and take a country away from another just by declaration.  The Arabs, after the fact, cannot stand-up and say that their belated declaration can take precedence over the Israeli Declaration.  Even the 1933 Convention does not permit that.  Especially since the Israeli Declaration came after General Assembly resolution and followed the recommendation and implementation process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Again, for the 1000th times, acquiring land is a real estate matter. Israel legally declared independence in 1948, recognized by the U.N and many countries, including the U.S. 

Your 'Israel never acquired land from Palestine' argument is, as you always say, based on false premise.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, I believe you to be mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate of Palestine had borders artificially set by the Allied Powers.  (AGREED)
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But there was no State of Palestine with independence and sovereignty on its own.   It was former enemy territory held in trust, to be administered and subject to a disposition to be determined by the Allied Powers through the Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was part of the disposition; established inside the former Mandate Territory (named Palestine by the Allied Powers) pursuant to a Partition Plan approved by the General Assembly.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was not established inside Palestinian Borders, because there was no such thing; only the Mandate of Palestine which was something much larger than discussed today and included Transjordan.  The Hashemite Kingdom was established first from the Mandate of Palestine, then Israel.  The Arab Palestinian remnants declined to establish the third Arab State under the Partition Plan until November 1988.  Until then, the Arab Palestinian remnants had no recognized sovereignty over any territory in the Region.
> 
> Palestine DID NOT declared independence inside its own borders; because it had no borders.  Until the termination of the Mandate, the adjacent-surrounding nations held common borders with the Mandatory over the Mandate of Palestine (UK) and not the Palestinians.  On the termination of the Mandate, the power and authority of the Mandatory passed to the UN Palestine Commission by instruction of the UN and under supervision of the Security Council.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is based on false premise. The mandate had no borders. It was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's borders. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there within its international borders. This was still true in 1949.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You need to read the Treaty carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION VII. SYRIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 94.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.
> 
> Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> A Commission shall be constituted within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line described in Article 27, II (2) and (3). This Commission will be composed of three members nominated by France, Great Britain and Italy respectively, and one member nominated by Turkey; it will be assisted by a representative of Syria for the Syrian frontier, and by a representative of Mesopotamia for the Mesopotamian frontier.
> 
> The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.​
> *ARTICLE 95.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, *the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers,* to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Treaty was aligned to fit the earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement which was broad scope arrangement.  Under the Treaty, there were no boundaries for Palestine.  It was a territory defined by the Mandatory.  The Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 27 - PART II.  FRONTIERS OF TURKEY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. With Syria:
> From a point to be chosen on the eastern bank of the outlet of the Hassan Dede, about 3 kilometres north-west of Karatash Bu- run, north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 1 kilometre north of Babeli, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Karatash; thence to Kesik Kale, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 15 kilometres east-southeast of Karsbazar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Kara Tepe;
> thence to the bend in the Djaihun Irmak situated west of Duldul Dagh, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence in a general south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on Emir Musi Dagh about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Giaour Geul a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the railway, and leaving Duldul Dagh to Syria;
> thence eastwards to a point to be chosen about 5 kilometres north of Urfa a generally straight line from west to east to be hxed on the ground passing north of the roads connecting the towns of Bagh- che, Aintab, Biridjik, and Urfa and leaving the last three named towns to Syria;
> thence eastwards to the south-western extremity of the bend in the Tigris about 6 kilometres north of Azekh (27 kilometres west of Djezire-ibn-Omar), a generally straight line from west to east to be fixed on the ground leaving the town of Mardin to Syria;
> thence to a point to be chosen on the Tigris between the point of confluence of the Khabur Su with the Tigris and the bend in the Tigris situated about 10 kilometres north of this point,
> the course of the Tigris downstream, leaving the island on which is situated the town of Djezire-ibn-Omar to Syria.
> 
> 3. With Mesopotamia:
> Thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, a line to be fixed on the ground;
> thence eastwards to the point where it meets the frontier between Turkey and Persia,
> the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass south of Amadia.
> 
> 4. On the East and the North East:
> From the point above defined to the Black Sea, the existing frontier between Turkey and Persia, then the former frontier between Turkey and Russia, subject to the provisions of Article 89.
> 
> 5. The Black Sea.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory defined "Palestine" and not the regional indigenous population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are using old, outdated material. The treaty of Sevres never went into affect. It was replaced shortly thereafter by the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't be so foolish!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you check with the Treaty Commission, you'll notice this is a regional agreement that pertains to the "Americas" and not the Middle East.  It is only signed by members of the Organization of American States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This treaty did not create that law, it merely reiterated existing international norms. There is virtual unanimous recognition of that law worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for the 1000th times, acquiring land is a real estate matter. Israel legally declared independence in 1948, recognized by the U.N and many countries, including the U.S.
> 
> Your 'Israel never acquired land from Palestine' argument is, as you always say, based on false premise.
Click to expand...


Didn't the US acquire land from Mexico?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, I believe you to be mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate of Palestine had borders artificially set by the Allied Powers.  (AGREED)
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But there was no State of Palestine with independence and sovereignty on its own.   It was former enemy territory held in trust, to be administered and subject to a disposition to be determined by the Allied Powers through the Mandate Commission of the League of Nations.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was part of the disposition; established inside the former Mandate Territory (named Palestine by the Allied Powers) pursuant to a Partition Plan approved by the General Assembly.
> 
> The State of Israel (The Jewish State) was not established inside Palestinian Borders, because there was no such thing; only the Mandate of Palestine which was something much larger than discussed today and included Transjordan.  The Hashemite Kingdom was established first from the Mandate of Palestine, then Israel.  The Arab Palestinian remnants declined to establish the third Arab State under the Partition Plan until November 1988.  Until then, the Arab Palestinian remnants had no recognized sovereignty over any territory in the Region.
> 
> Palestine DID NOT declared independence inside its own borders; because it had no borders.  Until the termination of the Mandate, the adjacent-surrounding nations held common borders with the Mandatory over the Mandate of Palestine (UK) and not the Palestinians.  On the termination of the Mandate, the power and authority of the Mandatory passed to the UN Palestine Commission by instruction of the UN and under supervision of the Security Council.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is based on false premise. The mandate had no borders. It was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's borders. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there within its international borders. This was still true in 1949.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You need to read the Treaty carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION VII. SYRIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 94.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.
> 
> Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> A Commission shall be constituted within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line described in Article 27, II (2) and (3). This Commission will be composed of three members nominated by France, Great Britain and Italy respectively, and one member nominated by Turkey; it will be assisted by a representative of Syria for the Syrian frontier, and by a representative of Mesopotamia for the Mesopotamian frontier.
> 
> The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.​
> *ARTICLE 95.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, *the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers,* to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Treaty was aligned to fit the earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement which was broad scope arrangement.  Under the Treaty, there were no boundaries for Palestine.  It was a territory defined by the Mandatory.  The Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 27 - PART II.  FRONTIERS OF TURKEY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. With Syria:
> From a point to be chosen on the eastern bank of the outlet of the Hassan Dede, about 3 kilometres north-west of Karatash Bu- run, north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 1 kilometre north of Babeli, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Karatash; thence to Kesik Kale, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 15 kilometres east-southeast of Karsbazar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Kara Tepe;
> thence to the bend in the Djaihun Irmak situated west of Duldul Dagh, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence in a general south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on Emir Musi Dagh about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Giaour Geul a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the railway, and leaving Duldul Dagh to Syria;
> thence eastwards to a point to be chosen about 5 kilometres north of Urfa a generally straight line from west to east to be hxed on the ground passing north of the roads connecting the towns of Bagh- che, Aintab, Biridjik, and Urfa and leaving the last three named towns to Syria;
> thence eastwards to the south-western extremity of the bend in the Tigris about 6 kilometres north of Azekh (27 kilometres west of Djezire-ibn-Omar), a generally straight line from west to east to be fixed on the ground leaving the town of Mardin to Syria;
> thence to a point to be chosen on the Tigris between the point of confluence of the Khabur Su with the Tigris and the bend in the Tigris situated about 10 kilometres north of this point,
> the course of the Tigris downstream, leaving the island on which is situated the town of Djezire-ibn-Omar to Syria.
> 
> 3. With Mesopotamia:
> Thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, a line to be fixed on the ground;
> thence eastwards to the point where it meets the frontier between Turkey and Persia,
> the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass south of Amadia.
> 
> 4. On the East and the North East:
> From the point above defined to the Black Sea, the existing frontier between Turkey and Persia, then the former frontier between Turkey and Russia, subject to the provisions of Article 89.
> 
> 5. The Black Sea.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory defined "Palestine" and not the regional indigenous population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, I believe you to be mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is based on false premise. The mandate had no borders. It was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's borders. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there within its international borders. This was still true in 1949.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You need to read the Treaty carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty was aligned to fit the earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement which was broad scope arrangement.  Under the Treaty, there were no boundaries for Palestine.  It was a territory defined by the Mandatory.  The Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 27 - PART II.  FRONTIERS OF TURKEY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. With Syria:
> From a point to be chosen on the eastern bank of the outlet of the Hassan Dede, about 3 kilometres north-west of Karatash Bu- run, north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 1 kilometre north of Babeli, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Karatash; thence to Kesik Kale, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 15 kilometres east-southeast of Karsbazar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Kara Tepe;
> thence to the bend in the Djaihun Irmak situated west of Duldul Dagh, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence in a general south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on Emir Musi Dagh about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Giaour Geul a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the railway, and leaving Duldul Dagh to Syria;
> thence eastwards to a point to be chosen about 5 kilometres north of Urfa a generally straight line from west to east to be hxed on the ground passing north of the roads connecting the towns of Bagh- che, Aintab, Biridjik, and Urfa and leaving the last three named towns to Syria;
> thence eastwards to the south-western extremity of the bend in the Tigris about 6 kilometres north of Azekh (27 kilometres west of Djezire-ibn-Omar), a generally straight line from west to east to be fixed on the ground leaving the town of Mardin to Syria;
> thence to a point to be chosen on the Tigris between the point of confluence of the Khabur Su with the Tigris and the bend in the Tigris situated about 10 kilometres north of this point,
> the course of the Tigris downstream, leaving the island on which is situated the town of Djezire-ibn-Omar to Syria.
> 
> 3. With Mesopotamia:
> Thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, a line to be fixed on the ground;
> thence eastwards to the point where it meets the frontier between Turkey and Persia,
> the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass south of Amadia.
> 
> 4. On the East and the North East:
> From the point above defined to the Black Sea, the existing frontier between Turkey and Persia, then the former frontier between Turkey and Russia, subject to the provisions of Article 89.
> 
> 5. The Black Sea.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory defined "Palestine" and not the regional indigenous population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


You didn't address what Tinmore said


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This treaty did not create that law, it merely reiterated existing international norms. There is virtual unanimous recognition of that law worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards. Israel was declared inside Palestine's international borders. Israel never acquired any land for its declared state.
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders. They did not encroach on any other state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 1000th times, acquiring land is a real estate matter. Israel legally declared independence in 1948, recognized by the U.N and many countries, including the U.S.
> 
> Your 'Israel never acquired land from Palestine' argument is, as you always say, based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't the US acquire land from Mexico?
Click to expand...


I don't really understand why you would ask that.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, I believe you to be mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is based on false premise. The mandate had no borders. It was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's borders. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there within its international borders. This was still true in 1949.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You need to read the Treaty carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty was aligned to fit the earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement which was broad scope arrangement.  Under the Treaty, there were no boundaries for Palestine.  It was a territory defined by the Mandatory.  The Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 27 - PART II.  FRONTIERS OF TURKEY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. With Syria:
> From a point to be chosen on the eastern bank of the outlet of the Hassan Dede, about 3 kilometres north-west of Karatash Bu- run, north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 1 kilometre north of Babeli, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Karatash; thence to Kesik Kale, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 15 kilometres east-southeast of Karsbazar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Kara Tepe;
> thence to the bend in the Djaihun Irmak situated west of Duldul Dagh, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
> thence in a general south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on Emir Musi Dagh about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Giaour Geul a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the railway, and leaving Duldul Dagh to Syria;
> thence eastwards to a point to be chosen about 5 kilometres north of Urfa a generally straight line from west to east to be hxed on the ground passing north of the roads connecting the towns of Bagh- che, Aintab, Biridjik, and Urfa and leaving the last three named towns to Syria;
> thence eastwards to the south-western extremity of the bend in the Tigris about 6 kilometres north of Azekh (27 kilometres west of Djezire-ibn-Omar), a generally straight line from west to east to be fixed on the ground leaving the town of Mardin to Syria;
> thence to a point to be chosen on the Tigris between the point of confluence of the Khabur Su with the Tigris and the bend in the Tigris situated about 10 kilometres north of this point,
> the course of the Tigris downstream, leaving the island on which is situated the town of Djezire-ibn-Omar to Syria.
> 
> 3. With Mesopotamia:
> Thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, a line to be fixed on the ground;
> thence eastwards to the point where it meets the frontier between Turkey and Persia,
> the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass south of Amadia.
> 
> 4. On the East and the North East:
> From the point above defined to the Black Sea, the existing frontier between Turkey and Persia, then the former frontier between Turkey and Russia, subject to the provisions of Article 89.
> 
> 5. The Black Sea.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND TURKEY SIGNED AT SÈVRES AUGUST 10, 1920
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory defined "Palestine" and not the regional indigenous population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...

It's a pipe dream, Tinmore. A wisp of smoke. Face it like a man and live with it. It'll never come back no matter you say or think. I feel for you. That's the truth.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Grasping at straws!  Just a couple of points.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are using a Regional Treaty (Signatories limited to the Organization of American States) and not applicable to the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montevideo Convention, in full Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States,  agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 (and entering into force the following year),* that established the standard definition of a state under international law.*
> 
> Montevideo Convention (international agreement [1933]) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Montevideo Convention is an important "legal precedent;" I agree that there is no question in this.  If you use the definition of a "state" from the Montevideo Convention, then under the Convention, an entity is a State when it possesses: 
(1) a permanent population; 
(2 )a defined territory; 
(3 )a government and 
(4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.​
But these are the "minimum criteria" and not all inclusive.

Even under the Montevideo Convention, there is the requirement for the capacity to enter into relations with other states.  And under Pursuant to Article 8 of the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, an act relating to the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person who cannot be considered under Article 7 as authorized to represent a State (having full powers) for that purpose is without legal effect unless afterwards confirmed by that State. 

The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine did not establish the PLO as the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people until 28 October 1974.  It was only then did the Palestine have the "capacity."  Further, several concepts to which you should consider as to how, in 1948, or in 1967, the Arab-Palestinian factored:



			
				Part I: The Nation-State said:
			
		

> 1. State: a large social system with a set of rules that are enforced by a permanent administrative body (government). That body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty. That is, the state claims to be the highest source of decision-making of the social system within its jurisdiction, and it rejects outside interference in making or enforcing its set of rules. The many smaller systems within the state are not sovereign, nor are large international organizations like the United Nations, since states routinely reject their authority. The state is a political concept that refers to the exercise of power or the ability to make and enforce rules.
> 
> 2. Sovereign: ultimate power to control people and events within the area of the state.
> 
> 3. Nation: a group of individuals who feel that they have so much in common (interests, habits, ways of thinking, and the like) that they should all become a particular state. Unlike the term state, the term nation refers to the subjective feelings of its people. By this definition almost all the present nations would like to become nation-states, but many nations are actually parts of other states, and many states are not nation-states. On the whole, nation-states can count on much greater loyalty from their citizens than states that contain many nations, and this gives them greater strength in their inter- national dealings. (As you can see, the term international should really be interstate).
> 
> 4. Society: the population controlled by a state, or the population that forms a nation, or both. Some societies are territorially limited to a single geographical area and a single state while others are not.  The term society, unlike the terms state and nation, is not limited to a single definition because societies overlap with different states and nations.
> 
> 5. Country: a well-defined geographical area. The term simply refers to a spatial concept.
> 
> *SOURCE:* DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL TERMS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS



There was no point or period, between the outbreak of hostilities (May 1948) and the end of Occupation (1967 - West Bank and Gaza Strip), that the Palestinian People had the means, ability or capacity, to enter into an international agreement concluded between States.   There was no competent authority for the Palestinians designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating.  

The Arab Higher Committee (formed on 25 April 1936) was an informal agency with no real official recognition.  The AHC was disbanded, reconstituted, and reorganized by the Arab League (Nov '45 and May '46), and became the puppet regime of the Arab League.  It was never able to form an effective All-Palestine Government and never became recognized.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The Montevideo Convention is an important "legal precedent;" I agree that there is no question in this. If you use the definition of a "state" from the Montevideo Convention, then under the Convention, an entity is a State when it possesses:
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> (2 )a defined territory;
> (3 )a government and
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> 
> But these are the "minimum criteria" and not all inclusive.



Where does Israel fit into this description?

(1) a permanent population;
Israel's "permanent population" was a bunch of foreign immigrants from different countries.

(2 )a defined territory;
Israel has never had a defined territory.

(3 )a government and
Israel's government was formed by foreign organizations against the wishes of the native population.

(4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Well, OK.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Grasping at straws!  Just a couple of points.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are using a Regional Treaty (Signatories limited to the Organization of American States) and not applicable to the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montevideo Convention, in full Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States,  agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 (and entering into force the following year),* that established the standard definition of a state under international law.*
> 
> Montevideo Convention (international agreement [1933]) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Montevideo Convention is an important "legal precedent;" I agree that there is no question in this.  If you use the definition of a "state" from the Montevideo Convention, then under the Convention, an entity is a State when it possesses:
> (1) a permanent population;
> (2 )a defined territory;
> (3 )a government and
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.​
> But these are the "minimum criteria" and not all inclusive.
> 
> Even under the Montevideo Convention, there is the requirement for the capacity to enter into relations with other states.  And under Pursuant to Article 8 of the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, an act relating to the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person who cannot be considered under Article 7 as authorized to represent a State (having full powers) for that purpose is without legal effect unless afterwards confirmed by that State.
> 
> The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine did not establish the PLO as the the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people until 28 October 1974.  It was only then did the Palestine have the "capacity."  Further, several concepts to which you should consider as to how, in 1948, or in 1967, the Arab-Palestinian factored:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part I: The Nation-State said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. State: a large social system with a set of rules that are enforced by a permanent administrative body (government). That body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty. That is, the state claims to be the highest source of decision-making of the social system within its jurisdiction, and it rejects outside interference in making or enforcing its set of rules. The many smaller systems within the state are not sovereign, nor are large international organizations like the United Nations, since states routinely reject their authority. The state is a political concept that refers to the exercise of power or the ability to make and enforce rules.
> 
> 2. Sovereign: ultimate power to control people and events within the area of the state.
> 
> 3. Nation: a group of individuals who feel that they have so much in common (interests, habits, ways of thinking, and the like) that they should all become a particular state. Unlike the term state, the term nation refers to the subjective feelings of its people. By this definition almost all the present nations would like to become nation-states, but many nations are actually parts of other states, and many states are not nation-states. On the whole, nation-states can count on much greater loyalty from their citizens than states that contain many nations, and this gives them greater strength in their inter- national dealings. (As you can see, the term international should really be interstate).
> 
> 4. Society: the population controlled by a state, or the population that forms a nation, or both. Some societies are territorially limited to a single geographical area and a single state while others are not.  The term society, unlike the terms state and nation, is not limited to a single definition because societies overlap with different states and nations.
> 
> 5. Country: a well-defined geographical area. The term simply refers to a spatial concept.
> 
> *SOURCE:* DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL TERMS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no point or period, between the outbreak of hostilities (May 1948) and the end of Occupation (1967 - West Bank and Gaza Strip), that the Palestinian People had the means, ability or capacity, to enter into an international agreement concluded between States.   There was no competent authority for the Palestinians designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating.
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee (formed on 25 April 1936) was an informal agency with no real official recognition.  The AHC was disbanded, reconstituted, and reorganized by the Arab League (Nov '45 and May '46), and became the puppet regime of the Arab League.  It was never able to form an effective All-Palestine Government and never became recognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Honestly, what is the point of going over old treaties ad nauseam?  The Palestinians have been given International approval by the UN recognizing the State of Palestine to the 67 borders. By applying to the UN and getting recognition to set borders is where I start along with the UN...Sure Israel will ignore, take more land, kill Arabs, a certainty...


In the end, Israeli non-recognition of UN resolutions only makes her the Pariah of the world, and eventually boycotted like South Africa. The World will get its way...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, I believe you to be mistaken.



P F Tinmore said:


> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinian nationality under Mandatory Authority _(de jure existence - soup of the day)_ has absolutely nothing to do with "independence" or "sovereignty."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Montevideo Convention is an important "legal precedent;" I agree that there is no question in this. If you use the definition of a "state" from the Montevideo Convention, then under the Convention, an entity is a State when it possesses:
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> (2 )a defined territory;
> (3 )a government and
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> 
> But these are the "minimum criteria" and not all inclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Israel fit into this description?
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> Israel's "permanent population" was a bunch of foreign immigrants from different countries.
> 
> (2 )a defined territory;
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> (3 )a government and
> Israel's government was formed by foreign organizations against the wishes of the native population.
> 
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> Well, OK.
Click to expand...


Where does Palestine fit into this description?

(1) a permanent population;
The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.

(2 )a defined territory;
Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.

(3 )a government and
About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.

(4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.


----------



## Kondor3

"...You can't chase me! It was all mine in 1948 and that makes you illegal !!!

"...I'm gonna tell the U.N...!!! "


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

There are two sides to this issue.



pbel said:


> Honestly, what is the point of going over old treaties ad nauseam?


*(COMMENT)*

You are right.  There must be a way to effectively negotiate with the Hostile Palestinians that pledged genocide on the Israelis. 

However, I do think that the Israeli Government needs to put the hammer down on these renegade settlers raising havoc in the OtP.  The Israelis need to round these guys up and put them away.

They are not making any kind of positive contribution towards peace.  In fact they are making a mess of it all.  They need to be arrested and extradited to the Palestinians.



pbel said:


> The Palestinians have been given International approval by the UN recognizing the State of Palestine to the 67 borders. By applying to the UN and getting recognition to set borders is where I start along with the UN...Sure Israel will ignore, take more land, kill Arabs, a certainty...


*(COMMENT)*

Eventually all the Occupied Territory will be negotiated out in the Peace Talks.  There is going to be a fair set of claims with restitution.  But the Arab-Palestinians must be willing to atone for all the crimes they have committed.  Their hands are not clean.



pbel said:


> In the end, Israeli non-recognition of UN resolutions only makes her the Pariah of the world, and eventually boycotted like South Africa. The World will get its way...


*(COMMENT)*

Ahh --- The world knows that the Palestinians and the Israelis have to work this out for themselves.  

But, there are powerful forces in the background that would rather the conflict continue indefinitely.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I totally disagree.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does Palestine fit into this description?
> 
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.​
> (2 )a defined territory;
> Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.​
> (3 )a government and
> About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.​
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.​




*(COMMENT)*

The Arab-Palestinian has been the aggressor from the beginning.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I totally disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Palestine fit into this description?
> 
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.​
> (2 )a defined territory;
> Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.​
> (3 )a government and
> About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.​
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Palestinian has been the aggressor from the beginning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


did you expect them to welcome you with flowers and help you disposes them by Western Colonial Fiat? You are a hoot, Rocco!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I totally disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Palestine fit into this description?
> 
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.​
> (2 )a defined territory;
> Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.​
> (3 )a government and
> About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.​
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Palestinian has been the aggressor from the beginning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Where am I incorrect?

Did the  Arab-Palestinian aggression start when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, I believe you to be mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinian nationality under Mandatory Authority _(de jure existence - soup of the day)_ has absolutely nothing to do with "independence" or "sovereignty."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Well actually it does. A nation of people inside a defined territory have inherent rights like the right to self determination without external interference, and the right to sovereignty.

A mandatory is irrelevant because it does not have the authority to violate these rights.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, I believe you to be mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinian nationality under Mandatory Authority _(de jure existence - soup of the day)_ has absolutely nothing to do with "independence" or "sovereignty."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually it does. A nation of people inside a defined territory have inherent rights like the right to self determination without external interference, and the right to sovereignty.
> 
> A mandatory is irrelevant because it does not have the authority to violate these rights.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't.....


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I totally disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Palestine fit into this description?
> 
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.​
> (2 )a defined territory;
> Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.​
> (3 )a government and
> About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.​
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Palestinian has been the aggressor from the beginning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where am I incorrect?
> 
> Did the  Arab-Palestinian aggression start when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?
Click to expand...



LOL You say this as if it means anything    

What a ridiculous, childish argument, the Jews who immigrated had every right to be there, and the Palestinian Arabs had no right to tell them not to be.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you finally admit that Palestine wasn't a country in 1948, after runnig around the forum spewing your usual: It was the Zionists who came to take over the country of Palestine"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting and ironic and comical development...
> 
> Implicit admission of 'Nonexistent Status', with regard to statehood.
> 
> In light of the context surrounding the remark, it's just as powerful as an explicit admission.
> 
> I'd consider bookmarking the post (or your own response, which he can't edit) for future use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.
Click to expand...




 To do that they must first agree that Israel is a nation and has the right to exist as a nation. Then they would have to accept the UN partition plan and agree borders. The fact that the muslims refused to do any of this means that you are TELLING LIES. Were is this declaration of independence, who was it made to and who witnessed it. I have given you the de facto map of Palestine and it shows that it rakes in all of modern Jordan, part of Saudi, part of Syria, part of Lebanon and part of Egypt. Are you stating categorically that the itinerant illiterate muslim squatters claim all that as their Nation and the arab league has done nothing about it ? 

And for the record they were instrumental in the attacks on Israel a SOVERIEGN NATION recognised by the UN and the majority of the worlds nations.


----------



## Phoenall

docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Lebanon's territorial integrity inside Lebanon's international borders. It says nothing about any Israeli territory or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. Lebanon has no borders!
Click to expand...




 Even funnier is the fact they do and they were set in stone many decades ago, and here they are


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...
> 
> Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and you bombed the wrong side leaving the true land owners homeless and starving, while the muslims from the M.E carved up the land for themselves. Have you learnt nothing from what happened in Yugoslavia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have preferred the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
Click to expand...





Nothing to do with left or right wing the fact is like all Islamic takeovers the militants surge in from outside and swell the numbers of terrorists. There were no problems in Yugoslavia prior to the muslims demanding yet another Islamic nation, it had a thriving economy and was the playground of Europe. Have you seen any of the atrocities carried out by the muslims in their terrorist attacks, the piles of bodies from mass murders and cannibalistic feasts. The defiled bodies of children and signs of post mortem rape. Is it any wonder the non Muslims retaliated to this with ethnic cleansing of insurgents and muslim terrorists. How many innocent women and children did the USA MASS MURDER in your name during the conflict.
 We see the same thing happening in Lebanon and Syria today and you are itching to get tales of bloodshed and war crimes so you can send in the troops to clean it all up. Thus paving the way for a neo Marxist puppet government in the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That 'Nonexistent Status' is just Israeli propaganda. You obviously have no clue as to the history of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine it was no longer under guardianship. Therefore, the Palestinians formed a government and declared independence inside its international borders in 1948. It did not encroach on any other territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paleatinians declared independence in 1988
> 
> It is YOU who knows nothing about Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
Click to expand...




SO they decided to circumvent un181 and take the land of Israel against the UN charter, is it any wonder this was disallowed and rejected by all the nations of the world
 It was also too late as the war had begun and the arab armies were invading Israel, and as the UN charter says acquisition of land through war is not permissible.


----------



## Phoenall

docmauser1 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have proffered the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this drivel mean?
Click to expand...




It means he is a left wing looney that supports the MASS MURDER of millions if they object to the state being the ultimate ruler. They side with the muslims so they can have oil to make the gears of industry go round, but would invade in a second if it looked like they were going to lose the oil. They see no wrong in starving millions to death or enslaving them to work in factories.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have proffered the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this drivel mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That people who support the expulsion of the Palestinians from their Homelands are Fascists, Mauser.
Click to expand...




 Would that be their Syrian homeland, Jordanian homeland, Iraqi homeland, Iranian homeland, Egyptian homeland or Saudi homeland. Because Palestine was never their real homeland was it, they arrived in the mid 19c on the promise of work on Jewish farms.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound. It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.
Click to expand...




 So you are saying that they did not take part in the war, and that they accepted the nation of Israel as a fact. That they made it clear that Israel was not counted in as part of Palestine and that they were about to steal land that was not theirs .


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and you bombed the wrong side leaving the true land owners homeless and starving, while the muslims from the M.E carved up the land for themselves. Have you learnt nothing from what happened in Yugoslavia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have preferred the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with left or right wing the fact is like all Islamic takeovers the militants surge in from outside and swell the numbers of terrorists. There were no problems in Yugoslavia prior to the muslims demanding yet another Islamic nation, it had a thriving economy and was the playground of Europe. Have you seen any of the atrocities carried out by the muslims in their terrorist attacks, the piles of bodies from mass murders and cannibalistic feasts. The defiled bodies of children and signs of post mortem rape. Is it any wonder the non Muslims retaliated to this with ethnic cleansing of insurgents and muslim terrorists. How many innocent women and children did the USA MASS MURDER in your name during the conflict.
> We see the same thing happening in Lebanon and Syria today and you are itching to get tales of bloodshed and war crimes so you can send in the troops to clean it all up. Thus paving the way for a neo Marxist puppet government in the M.E.
Click to expand...


Can you kindly produce and link some paperwork certifying your sanity?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, right wing Zionists would have preferred the US to support Milosevic and the Holocaust murderer Ratko Miladic? You right wingers act like Fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with left or right wing the fact is like all Islamic takeovers the militants surge in from outside and swell the numbers of terrorists. There were no problems in Yugoslavia prior to the muslims demanding yet another Islamic nation, it had a thriving economy and was the playground of Europe. Have you seen any of the atrocities carried out by the muslims in their terrorist attacks, the piles of bodies from mass murders and cannibalistic feasts. The defiled bodies of children and signs of post mortem rape. Is it any wonder the non Muslims retaliated to this with ethnic cleansing of insurgents and muslim terrorists. How many innocent women and children did the USA MASS MURDER in your name during the conflict.
> We see the same thing happening in Lebanon and Syria today and you are itching to get tales of bloodshed and war crimes so you can send in the troops to clean it all up. Thus paving the way for a neo Marxist puppet government in the M.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you kindly produce and link some paperwork certifying your sanity?
Click to expand...





You first have to be insane before you get certified sane. But if you look at the history of every Islamic war you see insurgents from outside the area rushing to fight for the glory of allah.  Your reply is tactic 23 in the neo Marxist book of disinformation.......claim the opposite side is insane or suffers from a mental condition to negate their input


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with left or right wing the fact is like all Islamic takeovers the militants surge in from outside and swell the numbers of terrorists. There were no problems in Yugoslavia prior to the muslims demanding yet another Islamic nation, it had a thriving economy and was the playground of Europe. Have you seen any of the atrocities carried out by the muslims in their terrorist attacks, *the piles of bodies from mass murders and cannibalistic feasts.* The defiled bodies of children and signs of post mortem rape. Is it any wonder the non Muslims retaliated to this with ethnic cleansing of insurgents and muslim terrorists. How many innocent women and children did the USA MASS MURDER in your name during the conflict.
> We see the same thing happening in Lebanon and Syria today and you are itching to get tales of bloodshed and war crimes so you can send in the troops to clean it all up. Thus paving the way for a neo Marxist puppet government in the M.E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you kindly produce and link some paperwork certifying your sanity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You first have to be insane before you get certified sane.* But if you look at the history of every Islamic war you see insurgents from outside the area rushing to fight for the glory of allah.  Your reply is tactic 23 in the neo Marxist book of disinformation.......claim the opposite side is insane or suffers from a mental condition to negate their input
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you kindly produce and link some paperwork certifying your sanity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You first have to be insane before you get certified sane.* But if you look at the history of every Islamic war you see insurgents from outside the area rushing to fight for the glory of allah.  Your reply is tactic 23 in the neo Marxist book of disinformation.......claim the opposite side is insane or suffers from a mental condition to negate their input
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the part that shows your true beliefs, this is rule 13 in the neo Marxist book of disinformation. Such a pity you have an ex Marxist on your case.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are something.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound.  It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.  Even the Arab League understood that it was invalid; and was (one) the main reason the Arab League dissolved that iteration of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which submitted it for incompetence.
> 
> The AHC did not follow the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" set by the General Assembly; and territorially covered territory already declared independent.  Thus the nonsensical declaration went unrecognized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citation you posted, is well known and is equally invalid and unsound. It comes months after the Jewish Agency declared independence of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that they did not take part in the war, and that they accepted the nation of Israel as a fact. That they made it clear that Israel was not counted in as part of Palestine and that they were about to steal land that was not theirs .
Click to expand...


I didn't say any of that.

I said that Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own international borders that were defined some 25 years earlier by international treaties.

I don't see why there is a problem with that.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Of course there are opposing views.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I totally disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Palestine fit into this description?
> 
> 
> (1) a permanent population;
> 
> P F Tinmore:  The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.
> 
> (2 )a defined territory;
> 
> P F Tinmore:  Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.
> 
> (3 )a government and
> 
> P F Tinmore:  About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.
> 
> (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
> 
> P F Tinmore:  Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Palestinian has been the aggressor from the beginning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where am I incorrect?
> 
> Did the  Arab-Palestinian aggression start when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Perspective!


(1) a permanent population;

P F Tinmore:  The vast majority of Palestinians can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years.

*(COMMENT)*

The historical longevity of the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) in residence _(indigenous population)_ does not have anything to do with "self-governing control or authority," "sovereignty," or "territorial independence."  In this case, the HoAP uses this argument merely as an expression of sympathy in the projection of the perpetual image of a victim.  

The HoAP (indigenous people) have suffered from historic injustices as a result of their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources for two millennium.   The HoAP have no real history of ever having "self-governing control or authority," "sovereignty," or "territorial independence."  This inability and lack of capacity "self-governing control or authority," has prevented them from exercising their right to development in accordance with their own wants and needs. 


(2 )a defined territory;

P F Tinmore:  Palestine has had international borders dating back to post WWI treaties.

*(COMMENT)*

There is no "State of Palestine" had only boundaries that were administratively set by the Allied Powers from 1916 to 1948.  These boundaries were set to facilitate divisional control between controls of authority the French Mandate and the British Mandate; and subdivisions within each.   They were not geo-political boundaries between territories occupied or the formerly enemy occupied territory of the Ottoman Empire.

In the case of "Palestine;" an administrative designation recognize by the Ottoman/Turk Empire and the successors (the Allied Powers) stretched to Mesopotamia (Iraq); a straight line border surveyed and established by the post-War Mandatory (UK), was something different from what the HoAP consider today.  By previous arrangement with the Royal Family to HM the King of the Hejaz, approximately three-quarters of the territory was allocated to the Hashemite Kingdom, administered through the Mandate of Palestine.  At no time did the Ottomans or the Allied Powers establish a State of Palestine.


(3 )a government and

P F Tinmore:  About 80 Palestinian political leaders formed a government and declared independence in 1948.

*(COMMENT)*

This All-Palestine Government established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, was "after the fact" to the establishment of the "State of Israel" in May 1948; under the recommendation of the General Assembly.  It was not recognized because the State of Israel had already been established over the same territory.


(4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

P F Tinmore:  Due to illegal external interference (foreign military occupation) the government has had little power to do anything.

*(COMMENT)*

The "illegal external interference" was on the part of the "Arab League" _(combined Arab armies totaled no more than 25,000 troops; including 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,500 Transjordanian troops and perhaps 3,000 troops from Palestine itself, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon respectively)_ and not the Israelis operating under the recognition of the implementing authority of the UN Security Council.  At the Armistice, the Occupation Powers were "Egypt," which occupied the Gaza Strip, and the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan," which occupied the West Bank and portions of Jerusalem.  These two occupations prevented the indigenous population exercising the right of self-determination over the lands, territories and resources to strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.  

The claim that post-1967 Israeli Occupation has given the HoAP "little power to do anything" is not exactly accurate.  The HoAP declare independence in 1988 _(exercising the right of self-determination)_, a step that could not have been achieved under Egyptian Occupation or Jordanian Annexation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoocoR said:
			
		

> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Of course there are opposing views.



And, of course, yours would be one of them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The historical longevity of the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) in residence (indigenous population) does not have anything to do with "self-governing control or authority," "sovereignty," or "territorial independence." In this case, the HoAP uses this argument merely as an expression of sympathy in the projection of the perpetual image of a victim.



You never have posted a link explaining how recent immigrants have the right to self determination and the indigenous population does not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> This All-Palestine Government established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, was "after the fact" to the establishment of the "State of Israel" in May 1948; under the recommendation of the General Assembly. *It was not recognized because the State of Israel had already been established over the same territory.*



Do you have a link for that?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical longevity of the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) in residence (indigenous population) does not have anything to do with "self-governing control or authority," "sovereignty," or "territorial independence." In this case, the HoAP uses this argument merely as an expression of sympathy in the projection of the perpetual image of a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never have posted a link explaining how recent immigrants have the right to self determination and the indigenous population does not.
Click to expand...



Where did Rocco say that the indigenous population don't have the right to self determination?
You keep asking Rocco questions about other issues, when you are quoting his posts.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This All-Palestine Government established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, was "after the fact" to the establishment of the "State of Israel" in May 1948; under the recommendation of the General Assembly. *It was not recognized because the State of Israel had already been established over the same territory.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...


A link that Israel declared independence in 1948 ? Link for what ??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical longevity of the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) in residence (indigenous population) does not have anything to do with "self-governing control or authority," "sovereignty," or "territorial independence." In this case, the HoAP uses this argument merely as an expression of sympathy in the projection of the perpetual image of a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never have posted a link explaining how recent immigrants have the right to self determination and the indigenous population does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Rocco say that the indigenous population don't have the right to self determination?
> You keep asking Rocco questions about other issues, when you are quoting his posts.
Click to expand...


Roccoo has many times stated that the immigrant Jews exercised their right to self determination by creating Israel.

He has also stated many times the the indigenous population has no such right.

He has yet to provide links to confirm his statements.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This All-Palestine Government established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, was "after the fact" to the establishment of the "State of Israel" in May 1948; under the recommendation of the General Assembly. *It was not recognized because the State of Israel had already been established over the same territory.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A link that Israel declared independence in 1948 ? Link for what ??
Click to expand...


Read the statement I questioned again.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never have posted a link explaining how recent immigrants have the right to self determination and the indigenous population does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Rocco say that the indigenous population don't have the right to self determination?
> You keep asking Rocco questions about other issues, when you are quoting his posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roccoo has many times stated that the immigrant Jews exercised their right to self determination by creating Israel.
> 
> He has also stated many times the the indigenous population has no such right.
> 
> He has yet to provide links to confirm his statements.
Click to expand...


The first statement is a fact. IF you need a link to show that the Jews practice self determination to create Israel, then you really need to go back to reading history

As for the second, I've never seen Rocco say that, and I'm sure he didn't. It's just a matter of you misinterpreting what others say.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Rocco say that the indigenous population don't have the right to self determination?
> You keep asking Rocco questions about other issues, when you are quoting his posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roccoo has many times stated that the immigrant Jews exercised their right to self determination by creating Israel.
> 
> He has also stated many times the the indigenous population has no such right.
> 
> He has yet to provide links to confirm his statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first statement is a fact. IF you need a link to show that the Jews practice self determination to create Israel, then you really need to go back to reading history
> 
> As for the second, I've never seen Rocco say that, and I'm sure he didn't. It's just a matter of you misinterpreting what others say.
Click to expand...


Come on. Rocco consistently dances around the Palestinian's rights issue.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roccoo has many times stated that the immigrant Jews exercised their right to self determination by creating Israel.
> 
> He has also stated many times the the indigenous population has no such right.
> 
> He has yet to provide links to confirm his statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first statement is a fact. IF you need a link to show that the Jews practice self determination to create Israel, then you really need to go back to reading history
> 
> As for the second, I've never seen Rocco say that, and I'm sure he didn't. It's just a matter of you misinterpreting what others say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Rocco consistently dances around the Palestinian's rights issue.
Click to expand...


Well I don't recall him saying that the Palestinians didn't/don't have rights. But then again, I haven't read every single post of his, it's just that, that doesn't seem like something HE would say


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first statement is a fact. IF you need a link to show that the Jews practice self determination to create Israel, then you really need to go back to reading history
> 
> As for the second, I've never seen Rocco say that, and I'm sure he didn't. It's just a matter of you misinterpreting what others say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on. Rocco consistently dances around the Palestinian's rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't recall him saying that the Palestinians didn't/don't have rights. But then again, I haven't read every single post of his, it's just that, that doesn't seem like something HE would say
Click to expand...


I think Rocco's main point is that the Palestinians don't accept the rights of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on. Rocco consistently dances around the Palestinian's rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't recall him saying that the Palestinians didn't/don't have rights. But then again, I haven't read every single post of his, it's just that, that doesn't seem like something HE would say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Rocco's main point is that the Palestinians don't accept the rights of Israel.
Click to expand...


What rights of the Palestinians has Israel accepted?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't recall him saying that the Palestinians didn't/don't have rights. But then again, I haven't read every single post of his, it's just that, that doesn't seem like something HE would say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rocco's main point is that the Palestinians don't accept the rights of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rights of the Palestinians has Israel accepted?
Click to expand...


Nice deflection


----------



## Roudy

I will not bowl either.  I never understood what people liked about bowling.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rocco's main point is that the Palestinians don't accept the rights of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights of the Palestinians has Israel accepted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection
Click to expand...


Seriously, according to Israel, the Palestinians have no rights.

And Israel expects the Palestinians to accept Israel's so called rights.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What rights of the Palestinians has Israel accepted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, according to Israel, the Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> And Israel expects the Palestinians to accept Israel's so called rights.
Click to expand...


According to Israel, Palestinians have no rights?? 

That sounds like Palestinians propaganda....


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, according to Israel, the Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> And Israel expects the Palestinians to accept Israel's so called rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Israel, Palestinians have no rights??
> 
> That sounds like Palestinians propaganda....
Click to expand...


Which circles back to my question:

What rights of the Palestinians has Israel accepted?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, according to Israel, the Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> And Israel expects the Palestinians to accept Israel's so called rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Israel, Palestinians have no rights??
> 
> That sounds like Palestinians propaganda....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which circles back to my question:
> 
> What rights of the Palestinians has Israel accepted?
Click to expand...


You are more familiar with these rights Tinmore. So answer the question


----------



## toastman

Better yet, why don't you give me a list of the rights of the Palestinians that you ALWAYS talk about, and we'll take it from there. And provide  link, for once


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Better yet, why don't you give me a list of the rights of the Palestinians that you ALWAYS talk about, and we'll take it from there. And provide  link, for once



How about starting with the basics?

The right to self determination without external interference.


----------



## toastman

Who is stopping them for practicing self determination ?? They declared independence in 1988 and the U.N gave them non member observer status.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Who is stopping them for practicing self determination ?? They declared independence in 1988 and the U.N gave them non member observer status.


Fuck that shit!

I'm ordering you to "bow now".

Bow now, brown cow.

_Just do it!_


----------



## toastman

I don't bow to Lakers fans !!


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> I don't bow to Lakers fans !!


Oh c'mon, we got a one game winning streak going!


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't bow to Lakers fans !!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh c'mon, we got a one game winning streak going!
Click to expand...


Hahahaha !!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Who is stopping them for practicing self determination ?? They declared independence in 1988 and the U.N gave them non member observer status.





1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The Palestinians did not encroach on any territory claimed by Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that they did not take part in the war, and that they accepted the nation of Israel as a fact. That they made it clear that Israel was not counted in as part of Palestine and that they were about to steal land that was not theirs .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of that.
> 
> I said that Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own international borders that were defined some 25 years earlier by international treaties.
> 
> I don't see why there is a problem with that.
Click to expand...





They could not declare independence as the land was never theirs to claim, it never had any international borders being a part of the Ottoman empire and not a stand alone nation.
 What treaties of 1923 gave the Bedouin the land of Palestine under International treaty that dissolved the nations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt.

You also said that they claim independence and did not encroach on any of Israel's lands knowing that the "international borders" do not include Israel as a nation and goes against the UN charter of gaining land by force.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that they did not take part in the war, and that they accepted the nation of Israel as a fact. That they made it clear that Israel was not counted in as part of Palestine and that they were about to steal land that was not theirs .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of that.
> 
> I said that Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own international borders that were defined some 25 years earlier by international treaties.
> 
> I don't see why there is a problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They could not declare independence as the land was never theirs to claim, it never had any international borders *being a part of the Ottoman empire and not a stand alone nation.
> What treaties of 1923 gave the Bedouin the land of Palestine under International treaty that dissolved the nations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt.
> 
> You also said that they claim independence and did not encroach on any of Israel's lands knowing that the "international borders" do not include Israel as a nation and goes against the UN charter of gaining land by force.
Click to expand...


Of course that is not true.

A treaty between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire established an international border between the two in 1906. This international border was retained when Palestine was created out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.

The British suggestion of separating Transjordan from Palestine was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 setting the eastern international border of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne Established the International border between Syria (and Lebanon) and Palestine in 1923.


----------



## Kondor3

The region known as Palestine was unincorporated and uncharted and without autonomy.

Politically speaking, it was a vacuum - without air - lacking substance.

The borders being referenced here are the territorial limits of Lebanon to the North, Syria and Jordan to the East, and Egypt to the South.

Those borders served to shape the geographic area containing the political vacuum known as Palestine.

The only way 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' or vacuum has a shape is when surrounded by substance.

Substance has its perimeter... its boundaries...its borders.

The substantive nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all had borders.

The political emptiness or vacuum of so-called Palestine took its shape - not from its own borders (_because it had none, given its nonexistent status as a nation-state_) - but from the borders of its neighbors.

The Jews residing within that political vacuum banded together to create political substance utilizing a piece of the vacuum-zone, and they were successful at it.

The Muslim-Arab Palestinians within that political vacuum simply weren't proactive enough and bold enough and intelligent enough and quick enough to do the same with that portion of the vacuum-zone that remained.

As usual with Palestinians... a day late and a dinarii short.

And here they are, 66 years later, still pissing and moaning and looking to pick a fight over old legalities and title-deeds and the un-fairness of it all, rather than emigrating elsewhere.

Not exactly the brightest crayons in the box.


----------



## rhodescholar

Phoenall said:


> They could not declare independence as the land was never theirs to claim, it never had any international borders being a part of the Ottoman empire and not a stand alone nation. What treaties of 1923 gave the Bedouin the land of Palestine under International treaty that dissolved the nations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt. You also said that they claim independence and did not encroach on any of Israel's lands knowing that the "international borders" do not include Israel as a nation and goes against the UN charter of gaining land by force.



One of the reasons I do not even read or waste my time with these anti-Israel lying ***** and filth liars like pftin-douchebag is the abject hypocrisy not-so-bright trash like this represents, as they relentlessly whine about the "illegitimacy" of israel, but ignore a country like syria, which was also artificially drawn on a map with a minority group being granted control over a far larger majority, by the same people who drew the lines of 1948 Israel.  These lowlifes will also complain about how "jews migrated en masse into the land, and are immigrants to it", but never complain about how sunni and shia muslims immigrated in huge numbers into lebanon, destroying what was once the shining jewel of the mideast turning it into yet another disgusting arab muslim shithole.

Another simple reason to ignore a piece of shit like tin-douche is that it has no interest in actual discussion, it changes the topic whenever cornered and just repeats one liners.  It should just be broadly ignored until it leaves the forum.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of that.
> 
> I said that Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own international borders that were defined some 25 years earlier by international treaties.
> 
> I don't see why there is a problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They could not declare independence as the land was never theirs to claim, it never had any international borders *being a part of the Ottoman empire and not a stand alone nation.
> What treaties of 1923 gave the Bedouin the land of Palestine under International treaty that dissolved the nations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt.
> 
> You also said that they claim independence and did not encroach on any of Israel's lands knowing that the "international borders" do not include Israel as a nation and goes against the UN charter of gaining land by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> A treaty between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire established an international border between the two in 1906. This international border was retained when Palestine was created out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The British suggestion of separating Transjordan from Palestine was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 setting the eastern international border of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne Established the International border between Syria (and Lebanon) and Palestine in 1923.
Click to expand...


WRONG as the border was between Egypt and the Ottomans, the Palestinians did not exist at that time and neither did the nation of Palestine. Read the details in the International Law books dealing with borders. All that remained was the Egyptian part of the border.
Irrelevant as trans Jordan was still a part of Palestine according to the maps of the time, the same maps that you have used to show that the non existent nation of Palestine had international borders, when what you really meant was the borders of the Ottoman empire.
Wrong as this was preceded by the setting up of the British mandate, and then superseded by the setting up of the UN. You cant claim Borders and then change their position to suit your RACIST ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED because yiu want to see Israel destroyed. 

The fact remains that Israel is the only nation in the area now known as Palestine to have a legal right to exist and is recognised as such by the UN and International Law. Your posturing and dredging up old voided agreements show that you are clutching at straws to justify your POV.

ISREAL EXISTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PALESTINE DOES NOT GET USED TO IT.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Well, this is not exactly accurate.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never have posted a link explaining how recent immigrants have the right to self determination and the indigenous population does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Rocco say that the indigenous population don't have the right to self determination?
> You keep asking Rocco questions about other issues, when you are quoting his posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roccoo has many times stated that the immigrant Jews exercised their right to self determination by creating Israel.
> 
> He has also stated many times the the indigenous population has no such right.
> 
> He has yet to provide links to confirm his statements.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I stated that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) did not have the right to declare independence in September 1948, over the territory that Israel already declared independence over in May 1948.

Two groups cannot claim the same same territory.

The AHC was late in coming, rejected UN recommendations, opposed implementation, and chose to use force to overturn the UN Partition Plan.

The Jewish Agency was early in their acceptance of the UN recommendation, openly participated in the implementation process, and did not use armed force in the steps preparatory to independence.​
I'm a bit confused.  you said:  "recently"



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historical longevity of the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) in residence (indigenous population) does not have anything to do with "self-governing control or authority," "sovereignty," or "territorial independence." In this case, the HoAP uses this argument merely as an expression of sympathy in the projection of the perpetual image of a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never have posted a link explaining how recent immigrants have the right to self determination and the indigenous population does not.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I'm assuming you are talking about "May 1948."  The immigrants were invited to the region.  They were there to put "into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."  (Article 95, Treaty of Sevres; Paragraph (b), San Remo Convention)

The indigenous Arab Palestinians, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.  The indigenous Arab Palestinians have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.  The indigenous Arab Palestinians DID NOT then, and DO NOT now have the right to unilaterally overturn by force the decisions of the Treaty, or the UN in matters governing the establishment of "sovereign entities" and the Partition of States.

The indigenous population has the right of "self-determination" in so far as it does not interfere with the legal proceedings as established by international law.   Nothing in international law says that the indigenous Arab Palestinians (or indeed any Arab people) have the right to declare a sovereignty unto themselves.  One needs only look at the outcome of the recent "Arab Spring" to observe the rights of the indigenous Arab in such self-governing situations.  

No indigenous Arab Palestinians has the right to declare a jihad or genocide on the Jewish People.  If it takes a two-State solution to prevent indigenous Arab Palestinians the aim of depriving the Israelis (Jews) of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities _(The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man women and child.")_, then the General Assembly has the right and the duty to extend that solution.  The indigenous Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) has a DUTY to refrain in their 
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (including the State of Israel).  The principle that indigenous Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. 

The indigenous Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) has NO RIGHT to obstruct the Jewish People from following the accepted Plan of the UN.  The right of legally established State of Israel to combat foreign attacks by externally interfering Arab States and aggression by Arab Armies, is absolute.  The Jewish State has the right to defend against the Jihad and armed struggle, or aggression the HoAP use to defy the implementation of the UN Partition Plan; and the Israeli steps taken to secure their right to self-determination, and independence. 

Finally, and most importantly, the Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.  But this DOES NOT SAY that the HoAP has GREATER rights or freedoms from those exercised by the Israeli (whether they are considered immigrant or not).  In the end, HoAP has no greater rights than those of the Jews that came to the  Mandated Territory under the Immigration Plan and Authority of the Allied Powers (the successor government power).

If the last six decades of HoAP violence are based on the misguided assumption that the HoAP indigenous population had some superior rights to sovereignty, then that is dispelled.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> The region known as Palestine was unincorporated and uncharted and without autonomy.
> 
> Politically speaking, it was a vacuum - without air - lacking substance.
> 
> The borders being referenced here are the territorial limits of Lebanon to the North, Syria and Jordan to the East, and Egypt to the South.
> 
> Those borders served to shape the geographic area containing the political vacuum known as Palestine.
> 
> The only way 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' or vacuum has a shape is when surrounded by substance.
> 
> Substance has its perimeter... its boundaries...its borders.
> 
> The substantive nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all had borders.
> 
> The political emptiness or vacuum of so-called Palestine took its shape - not from its own borders (_because it had none, given its nonexistent status as a nation-state_) - but from the borders of its neighbors.
> 
> The Jews residing within that political vacuum banded together to create political substance utilizing a piece of the vacuum-zone, and they were successful at it.
> 
> The Muslim-Arab Palestinians within that political vacuum simply weren't proactive enough and bold enough and intelligent enough and quick enough to do the same with that portion of the vacuum-zone that remained.
> 
> As usual with Palestinians... a day late and a dinarii short.
> 
> And here they are, 66 years later, still pissing and moaning and looking to pick a fight over old legalities and title-deeds and the un-fairness of it all, rather than emigrating elsewhere.
> 
> Not exactly the brightest crayons in the box.





 Don't forget that Palestine the place extended into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt because it was not a nation but a smudge on the map. A good example is the Bonneville salt flats that change shape and size every year, another is the Russian Steppes that are just as changeable and neither have clearly defined borders because of their intransigence and shifting manner.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> The region known as Palestine was unincorporated and uncharted and without autonomy.
> 
> Politically speaking, it was a vacuum - without air - lacking substance.
> 
> The borders being referenced here are the territorial limits of Lebanon to the North, Syria and Jordan to the East, and Egypt to the South.
> 
> Those borders served to shape the geographic area containing the political vacuum known as Palestine.
> 
> The only way 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' or vacuum has a shape is when surrounded by substance.
> 
> Substance has its perimeter... its boundaries...its borders.
> 
> The substantive nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all had borders.
> 
> The political emptiness or vacuum of so-called Palestine took its shape - not from its own borders (_because it had none, given its nonexistent status as a nation-state_) - but from the borders of its neighbors.
> 
> The Jews residing within that political vacuum banded together to create political substance utilizing a piece of the vacuum-zone, and they were successful at it.
> 
> The Muslim-Arab Palestinians within that political vacuum simply weren't proactive enough and bold enough and intelligent enough and quick enough to do the same with that portion of the vacuum-zone that remained.
> 
> As usual with Palestinians... a day late and a dinarii short.
> 
> And here they are, 66 years later, still pissing and moaning and looking to pick a fight over old legalities and title-deeds and the un-fairness of it all, rather than emigrating elsewhere.
> 
> Not exactly the brightest crayons in the box.


WTF are you talking about?

There was almost 3/4's of a million people living there!

Over a half-million arabs and about 60,000 jews.

Un-incorporated my ass!


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The region known as Palestine was unincorporated and uncharted and without autonomy.
> 
> Politically speaking, it was a vacuum - without air - lacking substance.
> 
> The borders being referenced here are the territorial limits of Lebanon to the North, Syria and Jordan to the East, and Egypt to the South.
> 
> Those borders served to shape the geographic area containing the political vacuum known as Palestine.
> 
> The only way 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' or vacuum has a shape is when surrounded by substance.
> 
> Substance has its perimeter... its boundaries...its borders.
> 
> The substantive nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all had borders.
> 
> The political emptiness or vacuum of so-called Palestine took its shape - not from its own borders (_because it had none, given its nonexistent status as a nation-state_) - but from the borders of its neighbors.
> 
> The Jews residing within that political vacuum banded together to create political substance utilizing a piece of the vacuum-zone, and they were successful at it.
> 
> The Muslim-Arab Palestinians within that political vacuum simply weren't proactive enough and bold enough and intelligent enough and quick enough to do the same with that portion of the vacuum-zone that remained.
> 
> As usual with Palestinians... a day late and a dinarii short.
> 
> And here they are, 66 years later, still pissing and moaning and looking to pick a fight over old legalities and title-deeds and the un-fairness of it all, rather than emigrating elsewhere.
> 
> Not exactly the brightest crayons in the box.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> There was almost 3/4's of a million people living there!
> 
> Over a half-million arabs and about 60,000 jews.
> 
> Un-incorporated my ass!
Click to expand...





And only 30 years previously there were less than 100,000 muslims and 60,000 Jews. those muslims must have been some kind of superstuds to mange to pop out that many new muslims................


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> I stated that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) did not have the right to declare independence in September 1948, over the territory that Israel already declared independence over in May 1948.



Where was that territory? What were its borders?

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) did not have the right to declare independence in September 1948, over the territory that Israel already declared independence over in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that territory? What were its borders?
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.
Click to expand...


It's a very simple concept Tinmore, I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding it. 

You said that the Palestinians declared independence in 1948. Can you show up a map of the territory in which they declared independence?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) did not have the right to declare independence in September 1948, over the territory that Israel already declared independence over in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that territory? What were its borders?
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a very simple concept Tinmore, I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding it.
> 
> You said that the Palestinians declared independence in 1948. Can you show up a map of the territory in which they declared independence?
Click to expand...


Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find "international boundaries." Then find those boundaries on the map


----------



## Phoenall

QUOTE=P F Tinmore;8483276]





			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> I stated that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) did not have the right to declare independence in September 1948, over the territory that Israel already declared independence over in May 1948.



Where was that territory? What were its borders?

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.[/QUOTE]



 here you go the proposed partion of the area known as Palestine into a Jewish and muslim nation. The Jews declared independence for the land destined as a Jewish nation. Because the muslims refused their rights ended with that refusal.


----------



## toastman

Again, that is a the map of the U.N partition plan ! It says it right there on the top right ! Those are PROJECTED borders !


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that territory? What were its borders?
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very simple concept Tinmore, I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding it.
> 
> You said that the Palestinians declared independence in 1948. Can you show up a map of the territory in which they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find "international boundaries." Then find those boundaries on the map
Click to expand...


Do you have a link that says what land the Palestinians declared independence in ??


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that territory? What were its borders?
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very simple concept Tinmore, I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding it.
> 
> You said that the Palestinians declared independence in 1948. Can you show up a map of the territory in which they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find "international boundaries." Then find those boundaries on the map
Click to expand...




 So you are now saying that the muslims declared the nation of Israel to be part of their proposed nation because the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS of Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon allegedly mark their limits. A pity that they are the proposed borders of the partition that the muslims had turned down just a few months earlier


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> "..._Un-incorporated my ass!_"


Then it's your ass - doesn't matter to me.

Show us the polity (incorporated or chartered nation-state) called Palestine that existed at the moment the British Mandate was created or that existed at the moment that the British Mandate expired.

Show us a list of countries which had formally recognized Palestine as a nation-state and which had established ambassador--caliber diplomatic relations with Palestine as of 14-May-1948.

Identify for us the Legislative and Executive and Judicial bodies native to Palestine that existed as of 14-May-1948.

Identify for us those who were internationally and generally recognized as having authority over the entirety of the former Mandate as of 14-May-1948.

Show us an internationally and generally recognized Palestinian Declaration of Statehood or Independence that was operative on 14-May-1948.

Show us such things, and you might have a sustainable position, vis a vis incorporation or charter.

Fail to show us such things (and you will fail) and your assertion (_Palestine was incorporated or chartered at that point, after all_) fails as well.

Sorry.

A segment of the residents of unchartered Palestine chose to strike out on their own, to establish their own polity from that vacuum, and to establish and sustain claims to some of that land.

This can be viewed as...

1. residents of a part of an unincorporated parcel of land declaring themselves a self-governing nation, using land they already owned/controlled, and a few extra parcels tossed-in, once the fighting started

2. civil war between two factions of residents of that unincorporated parcel of land, with autonomy and self-governance and the establishing of a suitable nation-state polity in mind

3. secession from or rebellion against a preexisting polity

Either (1) or (2) can be made to work quite easily, but option (3) will only work if you can satisfy the rigorous multidimensional litmus tests for a preexisting polity.

And there is no escaping the idea that regardless of which of those options (1-3, above) most closely approximates the truth, the Jews were successful, and the Muslim-Arabs were not.

Every conflict has winners and losers.

And the Palestinians are profoundly in the Loser Camp.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> "..._Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find 'international boundaries.' Then find those boundaries on the map_..."


Oh, there were International Borders alright; it's just that they belonged to Lebanon (on that country's southern perimeter) and Syria (on that country's western perimeter) and Jordan (on that country's western perimeter) and Egypt (on that country's northeastern perimeter)... but did *not* belong to the political vacuum or nothingness that lay within those connected lines. A nonexistent polity cannot own anything by virtue of the fact that it does not exist.

In America, you can have a situation wherein a large, miles-square parcel of already-settled land and heavily-populated land can be unincorporated.

Group A, having control of part of that parcel of land, might want the entire parcel of land for itself, governed by Group A, in a manner similar to that of its neighbors.

Group B, having control of part of that parcel of land, might want the entire parcel of land for itself, governed by Group B, in a manner agreeable to Group B kindred and sympathizers residing elsewhere around the world.

Both groups are manifestly hostile to each other, and do not recognize the right of the other group to rule over them.

Group A decides to take the advice of its neighbors and put off establishing a polity until it is determined if the neighbors can deter Group B from striking out on its own.

Group B decides to strike out on its own, establishes a polity with all the trappings, and establishes and sustains a claim for the sections of land that it controls.

Group A and its neighbors are unsuccessful in preventing Group B from striking out on its own.

Group A suffers (on the macro level) in two ways: (1) it remains subordinate to the wishes of its kindred neighbors and (2) delays establishing a polity of its own until after many prerogatives and much additional land had been needlessly lost.

Group B survives and thrives.

Group A shrivels-up and withers on the vine, and continues to lose more and more land to Group B through foolhardy rejection of prior attempts at compromise, until Group A has virtually nothing left, and no prospect of recovering what was lost.

Basically... Nature has *de*-selected Group A.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> QUOTE=P F Tinmore;8483276]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) did not have the right to declare independence in September 1948, over the territory that Israel already declared independence over in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that territory? What were its borders?
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.
Click to expand...




 here you go the *proposed partion* of the area known as Palestine into a Jewish and muslim nation. The Jews declared independence for the land destined as a Jewish nation. Because the muslims refused their rights ended with that refusal.






[/QUOTE]

The international boundaries were marked as international boundaries. The proposed (but never accepted even by Israel) lines never became borders. Israel did not claim those lines as its borders.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that territory? What were its borders?
> 
> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where the Palestinian declaration encroached on Israel's declared territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very simple concept Tinmore, I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding it.
> 
> You said that the Palestinians declared independence in 1948. Can you show up a map of the territory in which they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find "international boundaries." Then find those boundaries on the map
Click to expand...

That's a 1946 survey map, Cupcake. You're always adamant about a 1948 map of Israel and you come up with doodly squat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very simple concept Tinmore, I don't understand why you are having so much trouble understanding it.
> 
> You said that the Palestinians declared independence in 1948. Can you show up a map of the territory in which they declared independence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find "international boundaries." Then find those boundaries on the map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a 1946 survey map, Cupcake. You're always adamant about a 1948 map of Israel and you come up with doodly squat.
Click to expand...


So? The 1949 armistice agreements confirmed the continued existence of those borders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say any of that.
> 
> I said that Palestinians declared independence on their own land inside their own international borders that were defined some 25 years earlier by international treaties.
> 
> I don't see why there is a problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They could not declare independence as the land was never theirs to claim, it never had any international borders *being a part of the Ottoman empire and not a stand alone nation.
> What treaties of 1923 gave the Bedouin the land of Palestine under International treaty that dissolved the nations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt.
> 
> You also said that they claim independence and did not encroach on any of Israel's lands knowing that the "international borders" do not include Israel as a nation and goes against the UN charter of gaining land by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> A treaty between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire established an international border between the two in 1906. This international border was retained when Palestine was created out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The British suggestion of separating Transjordan from Palestine was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 setting the eastern international border of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne Established the International border between Syria (and Lebanon) and Palestine in 1923.
Click to expand...




 You cant transfer a treaty made between two nations to suit your POV, so stop clutching at straws

 Wrong as trans Jordan was still part of Palestine.

 Does not matter as Palestine was never a nation to have any borders, and you cant transfer borders to a non existing entity. So until filistan comes into existence legally it cant have any international borders, and this means that they MUST sit down and talk with Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria to set their borders to be set in stone.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The region known as Palestine was unincorporated and uncharted and without autonomy.
> 
> Politically speaking, it was a vacuum - without air - lacking substance.
> 
> The borders being referenced here are the territorial limits of Lebanon to the North, Syria and Jordan to the East, and Egypt to the South.
> 
> Those borders served to shape the geographic area containing the political vacuum known as Palestine.
> 
> The only way 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' or vacuum has a shape is when surrounded by substance.
> 
> Substance has its perimeter... its boundaries...its borders.
> 
> The substantive nation-states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all had borders.
> 
> The political emptiness or vacuum of so-called Palestine took its shape - not from its own borders (_because it had none, given its nonexistent status as a nation-state_) - but from the borders of its neighbors.
> 
> The Jews residing within that political vacuum banded together to create political substance utilizing a piece of the vacuum-zone, and they were successful at it.
> 
> The Muslim-Arab Palestinians within that political vacuum simply weren't proactive enough and bold enough and intelligent enough and quick enough to do the same with that portion of the vacuum-zone that remained.
> 
> As usual with Palestinians... a day late and a dinarii short.
> 
> And here they are, 66 years later, still pissing and moaning and looking to pick a fight over old legalities and title-deeds and the un-fairness of it all, rather than emigrating elsewhere.
> 
> Not exactly the brightest crayons in the box.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> There was almost 3/4's of a million people living there!
> 
> Over a half-million arabs and about 60,000 jews.
> 
> Un-incorporated my ass!
Click to expand...


  Makes no difference to the facts that one day they were part of the Ottoman empire and the next they were part of Britain. As is usual the filistans never miss a chance to miss a chance.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Look at the legend on this map of Palestine and find "international boundaries." Then find those boundaries on the map
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a 1946 survey map, Cupcake. You're always adamant about a 1948 map of Israel and you come up with doodly squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? The 1949 armistice agreements confirmed the continued existence of those borders.
Click to expand...

Here's a 2014 travel map of Israel.Can you find Palestine?

compass.org/trips/compass-bible-study-trip-to-israel-2014/


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a 1946 survey map, Cupcake. You're always adamant about a 1948 map of Israel and you come up with doodly squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? The 1949 armistice agreements confirmed the continued existence of those borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a 2014 travel map of Israel.Can you find Palestine?
> 
> compass.org/trips/compass-bible-study-trip-to-israel-2014/
Click to expand...


I can't find Palestine here as well:

World Maps: Political, Physical, Satellite, Africa, Asia, Europe


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? The 1949 armistice agreements confirmed the continued existence of those borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a 2014 travel map of Israel.Can you find Palestine?
> 
> compass.org/trips/compass-bible-study-trip-to-israel-2014/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't find Palestine here as well:
> 
> World Maps: Political, Physical, Satellite, Africa, Asia, Europe
Click to expand...

Here it is. The whole country moved.


Syria Map - Syria Satellite Image - Physical - Political


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They could not declare independence as the land was never theirs to claim, it never had any international borders *being a part of the Ottoman empire and not a stand alone nation.
> What treaties of 1923 gave the Bedouin the land of Palestine under International treaty that dissolved the nations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt.
> 
> You also said that they claim independence and did not encroach on any of Israel's lands knowing that the "international borders" do not include Israel as a nation and goes against the UN charter of gaining land by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> A treaty between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire established an international border between the two in 1906. This international border was retained when Palestine was created out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The British suggestion of separating Transjordan from Palestine was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 setting the eastern international border of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne Established the International border between Syria (and Lebanon) and Palestine in 1923.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant transfer a treaty made between two nations to suit your POV, so stop clutching at straws
> 
> Wrong as trans Jordan was still part of Palestine.
> 
> *Does not matter as Palestine was never a nation to have any borders, *and you cant transfer borders to a non existing entity. So until filistan comes into existence legally it cant have any international borders, and this means that they MUST sit down and talk with Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria to set their borders to be set in stone.
Click to expand...


Who told you that? You need a better source.



> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## dreolin

That ol' worm keeps right on turning though, don't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...rigin-for-omar-in-foreign/?intcmp=sem_outloud

Time and Tide and the Tick...Tick...Tick.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> A treaty between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire established an international border between the two in 1906. This international border was retained when Palestine was created out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The British suggestion of separating Transjordan from Palestine was approved by the League of Nations in 1922 setting the eastern international border of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne Established the International border between Syria (and Lebanon) and Palestine in 1923.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant transfer a treaty made between two nations to suit your POV, so stop clutching at straws
> 
> Wrong as trans Jordan was still part of Palestine.
> 
> *Does not matter as Palestine was never a nation to have any borders, *and you cant transfer borders to a non existing entity. So until filistan comes into existence legally it cant have any international borders, and this means that they MUST sit down and talk with Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria to set their borders to be set in stone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you that? You need a better source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ummmm, what did you prove exactly ?


----------



## MHunterB

dreolin said:


> that ol' worm keeps right on turning though, don't it?
> 
> Academy names Palestine as place of origin for 'Omar' nomination | Fox News
> 
> time and tide and the tick...tick...tick.



*yawn*


----------



## dreolin

MHunterB said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> that ol' worm keeps right on turning though, don't it?
> 
> Academy names Palestine as place of origin for 'Omar' nomination | Fox News
> 
> time and tide and the tick...tick...tick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*
Click to expand...


<wipes the spittle from your face>


----------



## Kondor3

dreolin said:


> That ol' worm keeps right on turning though, don't it?
> 
> Academy names Palestine as place of origin for 'Omar' nomination | Fox News
> 
> Time and Tide and the Tick...Tick...Tick.


That and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks...


----------



## Kondor3

None of that ancient 'borders' crap means anything...

*This* is what determines the borders over there...






The borders are what the Israelis *SAY* they are...


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> None of that ancient 'borders' crap means anything...
> 
> *This* is what determines the borders over there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The borders are what the Israelis *SAY* they are...



No need, Israel already has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan, which has been proven over and over and over.


----------



## RoccoR

*et al,*

Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was



			
				Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
			
		

> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.​
> _*SUBJECT:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947



PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.

The difference between what was, and what is today, is a matter of military outcomes initiated through the external interference of the 5 Arab Armies taking aggressive action.

While the border arrangements of 15 May 1948 may be overtaken by events _(several Arab initiated wars)_, and the occupation through several decades by Egypt, Jordan and Israel, even the Palestinians _(in more lucid moments)_ recognizes the legitimacy. 

Today, this argument posed by PF Tinmore are irrelevant.  It has no basis in reality, and is not the fundamental obstruction to peace.  Already, the framework argument is over the 1967 Borders.

Again, we are well past this 1948 lack of borders argument.  It is now about the security of the state from the military external interference historically posed by Arab aggressive behaviors demonstrated in the past; and the demonstrated past practice of terrorist behaviors from Hostile Arab Palestinian.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.​
> _*SUBJECT:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
Click to expand...

There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*

There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.

Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.

Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.



> The difference between what was, and what is today, is a matter of military outcomes initiated through the external interference of the 5 Arab Armies taking aggressive action.


The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.



> While the border arrangements of 15 May 1948 may be overtaken by events _(several Arab initiated wars)_, and the occupation through several decades by Egypt, Jordan and Israel, even the Palestinians _(in more lucid moments)_ recognizes the legitimacy.


What border arrangements?



> Today, this argument posed by PF Tinmore are irrelevant.  It has no basis in reality, and is not the fundamental obstruction to peace.  Already, the framework argument is over the 1967 Borders.


Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?



> Again, we are well past this 1948 lack of borders argument.  It is now about the security of the state from the military external interference historically posed by Arab aggressive behaviors demonstrated in the past; and the demonstrated past practice of terrorist behaviors from Hostile Arab Palestinian.


Hogwash.  



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.​
> _*SUBJECT:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we are well past this 1948 lack of borders argument.  It is now about the security of the state from the military external interference historically posed by Arab aggressive behaviors demonstrated in the past; and the demonstrated past practice of terrorist behaviors from Hostile Arab Palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*

The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*

Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link. 


*Hogwash*

Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)


----------



## toastman

*Israel violated several major parts of the resolution before it claimed independence*

Link ?? And how could they violate it if you even said yourself it wasn't implemented


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
Click to expand...


I have never complained about foreign intervention.

You have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> *Israel violated several major parts of the resolution before it claimed independence*
> 
> Link ?? And how could they violate it if you even said yourself it wasn't implemented



Israel played the resolution 181 card in an attempt at obtaining legitimacy but never had any intention of complying with it.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I have never complained about foreign intervention.*
> 
> You have a reading comprehension problem.
Click to expand...


Sure you do, but only when it involves Jews/Israelis. You have a bullshitiing problem

Also, you didn't address everything I asked in the post.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel violated several major parts of the resolution before it claimed independence*
> 
> Link ?? And how could they violate it if you even said yourself it wasn't implemented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel played the resolution 181 card in an attempt at obtaining legitimacy but never had any intention of complying with it.
Click to expand...


And once gain, you not only failed to answer my question, but you provided ZERO evidence at all.

BTW, the reason I ask YOU to back up your claims so often is because you always make things up, and try to pass them off as facts


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
> 
> 
> 
> *
> I have never complained about foreign intervention.*
> 
> You have a reading comprehension problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do, but only when it involves Jews/Israelis. You have a bullshitiing problem
> 
> Also, you didn't address everything I asked in the post.
Click to expand...


Link to even one of my posts complaining about foreign intervention.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
Click to expand...




> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks??



You need to read up on the conflict.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel violated several major parts of the resolution before it claimed independence*
> 
> Link ?? And how could they violate it if you even said yourself it wasn't implemented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel played the resolution 181 card in an attempt at obtaining legitimacy but never had any intention of complying with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once gain, you not only failed to answer my question, but you provided ZERO evidence at all.
> 
> BTW, the reason I ask YOU to back up your claims so often is because you always make things up, and try to pass them off as facts
Click to expand...


I always back up my claims. You just don't understand my posts.


----------



## RoccoR

PF Tinmore, *et al,*

You are re-writing history.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.​
> _*SUBJECT:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You know this is not true.  The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.



			
				Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
			
		

> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948



You should also note that there was a hand-off to the Successor Government (UNPC):  Very IMPORTANT!



			
				UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.
> 
> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.​"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."​
> The Palestine Commission has adopted the following statement of policy with respect to the continuity of employment of present employees of the Mandatory administration in Palestine, and has requested the Mandatory Power to publish the statement or circulate it to all employees of the present Government in Palestine:
> "The United Nations Palestine Commission, being under the terms of the resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the administration of Palestine immediately following the termination of the Mandate, hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the same terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date, the Mandatory Government for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms."​
> The next meeting of the Commission will be on Monday, March 1, at 3 P.M.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948



The UNPC was the implementing agency for the UNSC, not the Mandatory (UK).



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.


*(COMMENT)*

This is more nonsense.  The US was the very first country to recognize the State of Israel with the borders under the Resolution.  But because of the outbreak of hostilities and the intervention of hostile Arab Forces, the ensuing military confrontation changed the areas of control.



P F Tinmore said:


> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.


*(COMMENT)*

Jordan had been infiltrating and prepositioning the Arab Legion for months before hand.  It was an open secret.  The "assistance" justification was merely subterfuge:



			
				 Exceprt: First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine said:
			
		

> 9.	The main facts controlling the security situation in Palestine today are the following:
> a.	Organized effect by strong Arab elements inside and outside Palestine to prevent the implementation of the Assembly&#8217;s plan of partition and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory.
> 
> b.	Certain elements of the Jewish community in Palestine continue to commit irresponsible acts of violence which worsen the security situation, although that Community is generally in support of the recommendations of the Assembly.
> 
> c.	The added complication created by the fact that the Mandatory Power, which remains responsible for law and order in Palestine until the termination of the Mandate, is engaged in the liquidation of its administration and preparing for the evacuation of its troops.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/9  S/676  16 February 1948



The entire purpose of the invasion by the 5 Arab Armies was to carry out the threats made by the Arab Higher Committee and "genocide" (see A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948).



P F Tinmore said:


> What border arrangements?
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?


*(COMMENT)*

Well as far as the "trumps international law" law is concerned, I suggest you look at the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.  In both cases, the PLO "adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)."  In fact, the Palestinian Declaration of Independence says in part:



			
				EXCERPT Palestinian Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences *and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.





P F Tinmore said:


> Again, we are well past this 1948 lack of borders argument.  It is now about the security of the state from the military external interference historically posed by Arab aggressive behaviors demonstrated in the past; and the demonstrated past practice of terrorist behaviors from Hostile Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I believe there were three war and two intafada's; with the Palestinians intimidating the current Peace Process now, by threatening another.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
Click to expand...


>>The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations.
Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain
bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have
made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not
propose to cooperate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they
propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason
to suppose that they do not mean what they say.2<<


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *et al,*
> 
> Don't get entangled with this border issue of that PF Tinmore raises.  He knows quite well that the boundary was
> 
> 
> 
> *PF Tinmore knows that Israel, in the formal notification, specifically cited the implementation under the 1947 Resolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
Click to expand...


>>The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations.
Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain
bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have
made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not
propose to cooperate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they
propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason
to suppose that they do not mean what they say.[URL="http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10063"]2[/URL]<<


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are 180 Degrees out of alignment here.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel violated several major parts of the resolution before it claimed independence*
> 
> Link ?? And how could they violate it if you even said yourself it wasn't implemented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel played the resolution 181 card in an attempt at obtaining legitimacy but never had any intention of complying with it.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You need to read the background on the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.  You will find that it was the Israelis that tried to dissolve the UN GA Resolution 181(II), and it was the Palestinians that fought for recognition of the resolution.

Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948



So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...

What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> You should also note that there was a hand-off to the Successor Government (UNPC): Very IMPORTANT!



What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?

Did Israel win its land from the UN?


----------



## Synthaholic

_*I will not Bow!









*_...oh, wait.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
Click to expand...


Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are intentionally trying to obscure the truth.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You know as well as I do, that the UNPC (Successor Government) implemented that part of the UNGA/RES/181(II) that was accepted by the Jewish Agency.  Section "A" (the Arab State) and Section "C" (Internationalization of Jerusalem) were not fully implemented because of the Immediate intervention of the 5 Foreign Arab Armies.

You know as well as I do that the External Interference of the 5 Arab Armies created immediate military engagements that pushed zones of control in all different directions and changed territorial controls. 

Today, what you call the West Bank of the State of Palestine was once Occupied and Annex sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.

Nothing in dispute today, is over the 1948 borders.  They are over territorial controls put in place to contain Hostile Arab Palestinians the promote Jihad and terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The entire purpose of the invasion by the 5 Arab Armies was to carry out the threats made by the Arab Higher Committee and "genocide" (see A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948).





> 10. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation therefore expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is en act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. 



I don't think so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are intentionally trying to obscure the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You know as well as I do, that the UNPC (Successor Government) implemented that part of the UNGA/RES/181(II) that was accepted by the Jewish Agency.  Section "A" (the Arab State) and Section "C" (Internationalization of Jerusalem) were not fully implemented because of the Immediate intervention of the 5 Foreign Arab Armies.
> 
> You know as well as I do that the External Interference of the 5 Arab Armies created immediate military engagements that pushed zones of control in all different directions and changed territorial controls.
> 
> Today, what you call the West Bank of the State of Palestine was once Occupied and Annex sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> Nothing in dispute today, is over the 1948 borders.  They are over territorial controls put in place to contain Hostile Arab Palestinians the promote Jihad and terrorism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Your post stated that resolution 181 was implemented.

All excuses aside, what was implemented? I don't see anything.


----------



## RoccoR

aris2chat,  _et al,_

Yes, this was a major concern back in the days of the Oslo Accords.



aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
> Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
> Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
> Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If the GA/RES/181(II) Partition was still viable, the Hostile Arab-Palestinians would actually have a claim to more than just the West Bank and Gaza Strip; quite a bit more, plus some very key port facilities.

But, given the conflict and its dimensions, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are about most (and maybe not even that) they could hope for today.  They may even be required to give-up some repatriation and war restitution; while Israel will probably have to give more in terms of civil settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
> Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
> Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
> Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.
Click to expand...


It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Of course you don't.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are intentionally trying to obscure the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You know as well as I do, that the UNPC (Successor Government) implemented that part of the UNGA/RES/181(II) that was accepted by the Jewish Agency.  Section "A" (the Arab State) and Section "C" (Internationalization of Jerusalem) were not fully implemented because of the Immediate intervention of the 5 Foreign Arab Armies.
> 
> You know as well as I do that the External Interference of the 5 Arab Armies created immediate military engagements that pushed zones of control in all different directions and changed territorial controls.
> 
> Today, what you call the West Bank of the State of Palestine was once Occupied and Annex sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> Nothing in dispute today, is over the 1948 borders.  They are over territorial controls put in place to contain Hostile Arab Palestinians the promote Jihad and terrorism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post stated that resolution 181 was implemented.
> 
> All excuses aside, what was implemented? I don't see anything.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I know that it is very hard to see Israel.  It is a relatively small piece of the former Mandate Territory.

Part I, Sections A and B relative to the Jewish State.
Part II - Boundaries - Relative to Section B and the Jewish State.

The Arab State was rejected, so no implementation was required.  And the UNPC had offices in Jerusalem and were driven out due to the conflict to defy implementation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up on the conflict.
Click to expand...


I did, many times. It is YOU who need to read up on it.

and you STILL, after all my requests, have not provided the link that talks about the 1948 war that you base your claims on . It's as if you don't want me to read something


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should also note that there was a hand-off to the Successor Government (UNPC): Very IMPORTANT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?
> 
> Did Israel win its land from the UN?
Click to expand...


Why do you ask stupid questions likes this instead of addressing what Rocco says ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again, you are 180 degrees out of alignment.



P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
> Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
> Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
> Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You are absolutely right.  "It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force."  The successor government was designated as the UNPC.  And it was the Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League that first threatened to use force, and then openly attacked the Successor Government and the Implemented Partition by the UNPC that formed the State of Israel.

Yes you are right in that:

It is illegal for the "Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" acquire land through the threat "against the UN, UNPC, the UNPC Partition" and the  use of force by the ""Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" to defy the judgement and implementation of the General Assembly as implemented through the Security Council by the UNPC.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire purpose of the invasion by the 5 Arab Armies was to carry out the threats made by the Arab Higher Committee and "genocide" (see A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation therefore expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is en act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter what you think. The link you posted is also irrelevant. What is relevant is what *ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE* 

Then there were the open threats to Israel of course.


----------



## Phoenall

p f tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *israel violated several major parts of the resolution before it claimed independence*
> 
> link ?? And how could they violate it if you even said yourself it wasn't implemented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> israel played the resolution 181 card in an attempt at obtaining legitimacy but never had any intention of complying with it.
Click to expand...





 link ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this is not true. The UN even published the formal implementation notice for public consumption.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Excerpt: PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *
> SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
Click to expand...





 How can you implement something that does not exist, 181 was not a command but a suggestion of intent. The UN was never formed to issue commands only to inform and suggest, which is what it has done since its inception. It suggests that UN member states combine forces and implement its suggestions as in the attacks on Iraq and afgahnistan. The muslims know this and have played on it many times in the past when they have asked UN forces to leave their country or face armed attack.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should also note that there was a hand-off to the Successor Government (UNPC): Very IMPORTANT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?
> 
> Did Israel win its land from the UN?
Click to expand...




 Did the filistans for that matter ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where were those proposed borders? Where were the rights of the non Jewish population? Where was the international city of Jerusalem? Where was that economic union?...
> 
> What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
> Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
> Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
> Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
Click to expand...




Yet you support the filistans in their endeavours along those lines, they publicly proclaim that they will not stop until Israel is destroyed and the Jews killed.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Sally said:


> Perhaps, Pbel, you should have your good friend Abbas take a look at Edwin Black and what he has to say.
> 
> EDWIN BLACK ON C-SPAN: THE FARHUD: THE ROOTS OF THE ARAB-NAZI ALLIANCE DURING WWII??. |



Cooperation with the Nazi Intelligence Services

During the first days of fascist domination in Germany, the Zionists held a direct line to the fascist repression apparatus which developed into loose collaboration between the Zionist leadership and the terror organizations of the Nazi Reich (the Gestapo, SS, etc). Before 1933, the Zionist official, Leo Plaut, already "had a connection" with the political police and with the police official Oberregierungsrat Rudolf Diels (supposedly a schoolfriend of Plaut). When Diels was first appointed chief of the secret police in 1933, he retained his connection with Plaut. "Indeed Plaut even had the secret telephone number of Diels and could call him anytime."58 One can only speculate about the details of these contacts because the documents regarding them are kept under lock and key at the Yad-Vashem archives in Jerusalem. However, it is to be supposed that it was through these contacts that a meeting was arranged between the then Prussian Prime Minister Hermann Goering (later sentenced to death by the Nuremberg International Tribunal as a war criminal) and the leaders of German Jewish organizations. The meeting took place on March 26, 1933. Among the representatives of the Zionists taking part was the official, Kurt Blumenfeld, but he was silent about this episode in his memoirs.59 

https://workspaces.acrobat.com/app.html#d=kvXmy4Qvmo1Cfwo5qYbT5A


----------



## MHunterB

Google Translate

OH, like he's an 'unbiased' /'objective' source!   He's not a 'historian' but an East German 'reporter'.....


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

MHunterB said:


> Google Translate
> 
> OH, like he's an 'unbiased' /'objective' source!   He's not a 'historian' but an East German 'reporter'.....



Are you gonna spoof that your zionist sources are unbiased...sides, Germans are ok these days or hadnt you heard, since 1945


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall,  _et al,_

This is always confusing to some.  While it is true that a GA Resolution, such as GA/RES/181(II) is non-binding, a Security Council action is binding.  Pursuant to Section "A" in subparagraph "(a)" the General Assembly requested the UN Security Council to "implement" the resolution.

"(a)	The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;"​


			
				Chapter V said:
			
		

> Article 25
> The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE





Phoenall said:


> How can you implement something that does not exist, 181 was not a command but a suggestion of intent. The UN was never formed to issue commands only to inform and suggest, which is what it has done since its inception. It suggests that UN member states combine forces and implement its suggestions as in the attacks on Iraq and afgahnistan. The muslims know this and have played on it many times in the past when they have asked UN forces to leave their country or face armed attack.


*(COMMENT)*

Paragraph 14, Section B, Part I, of UN GA Resolution 181(II) established the UN Palestine Commission which reports to the UN Security Council.



			
				UN Resolution 181(II) said:
			
		

> 14.	The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
> 
> The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.
> The Commission shall render periodic monthly progress reports, or more frequently if desirable, to the Security Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Section B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
> 
> In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue necessary regulations and take other measures as required.
> 
> The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.
> 
> 3.	*On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine.* Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
Click to expand...


Together, with the UK Memo that names the UN Palestine Commission as the Successor Government,  that I discuss in Posting #298, the implementation process begins as "Steps Preparatory to Independence."

Please take note that the Implementation Meetings started in January 1948.  UN Palestine Commission rendered its First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council on 29 January 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sally

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, Pbel, you should have your good friend Abbas take a look at Edwin Black and what he has to say.
> 
> EDWIN BLACK ON C-SPAN: THE FARHUD: THE ROOTS OF THE ARAB-NAZI ALLIANCE DURING WWII??. |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooperation with the Nazi Intelligence Services
> 
> During the first days of fascist domination in Germany, the Zionists held a direct line to the fascist repression apparatus which developed into loose collaboration between the Zionist leadership and the terror organizations of the Nazi Reich (the Gestapo, SS, etc). Before 1933, the Zionist official, Leo Plaut, already "had a connection" with the political police and with the police official Oberregierungsrat Rudolf Diels (supposedly a schoolfriend of Plaut). When Diels was first appointed chief of the secret police in 1933, he retained his connection with Plaut. "Indeed Plaut even had the secret telephone number of Diels and could call him anytime."58 One can only speculate about the details of these contacts because the documents regarding them are kept under lock and key at the Yad-Vashem archives in Jerusalem. However, it is to be supposed that it was through these contacts that a meeting was arranged between the then Prussian Prime Minister Hermann Goering (later sentenced to death by the Nuremberg International Tribunal as a war criminal) and the leaders of German Jewish organizations. The meeting took place on March 26, 1933. Among the representatives of the Zionists taking part was the official, Kurt Blumenfeld, but he was silent about this episode in his memoirs.59
> 
> https://workspaces.acrobat.com/app.html#d=kvXmy4Qvmo1Cfwo5qYbT5A
Click to expand...


Boo hoo, it looks like we have another poster here who is angry that the Jews supplied the Nazis with some equipment in exchange for some Jews.  No doubt this poster also would have like to have seen those Jews sent to the concentration camps.  Maybe he would be a good candidate to join the Golden Dawn group in Greece.  They need people like him.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you are 180 degrees out of alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
> Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
> Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
> Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are absolutely right.  "It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force."  The successor government was designated as the UNPC.  And it was the Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League that first threatened to use force, and then openly attacked the Successor Government and the Implemented Partition by the UNPC that formed the State of Israel.
> 
> Yes you are right in that:
> 
> It is illegal for the "Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" acquire land through the threat "against the UN, UNPC, the UNPC Partition" and the  use of force by the ""Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" to defy the judgement and implementation of the General Assembly as implemented through the Security Council by the UNPC.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are the one getting this backward.

What land were the "Arabs" trying to acquire by force?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel won her independence despite resolution 181.  You can't go back to the prepossessed borders.  West bank and Gaza were also won, but Israel gave up the gaza for the sake of peace, and has gotten no peace from gaza.
> Israel and the PA are in negotiations for what will be a palestinian state.
> Arabs did not want to give the palestinians a state, but Israel does.
> Amazing how palestinians reject 181 but want a state based on ceasefire lines after they lost the war, and tinman wants to go back to 181 lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support the filistans in their endeavours along those lines, they publicly proclaim that they will not stop until Israel is destroyed and the Jews killed.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians never attempted to acquire land by force.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few reasons why this statement is *not true.*
> 
> There was no resolution 181. Britain (the mandate) would not implement it without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and was offering an alternate proposal. Then the 1948 war broke out making the whole proposal moot.
> 
> Israel violated several major parts of the resolution *before* it claimed independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognize the resolution's proposed borders. Nobody else recognized them either.
> 
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.
> 
> 
> What border arrangements?
> 
> 
> Are you saying that so called reality trumps international law?
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up on the conflict.
Click to expand...


Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up on the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg
Click to expand...


???

This is where you got you information online about the war?

I asked you for a link that is solely or mainly about the war, with details. 
I've read several, and Wiki has a lot of detail, but some people consider it a viable source


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up on the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> This is where you got you information online about the war?
> 
> I asked you for a link that is solely or mainly about the war, with details.
> I've read several, and Wiki has a lot of detail, but some people consider it a viable source
Click to expand...


Let's narrow this down. What do I say about the war that you question?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> This is where you got you information online about the war?
> 
> I asked you for a link that is solely or mainly about the war, with details.
> I've read several, and Wiki has a lot of detail, but some people consider it a viable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's narrow this down. What do I say about the war that you question?
Click to expand...


You don't understand, it's because I've questioned so many things about what you say concerning the war that I ask for your link. So far I get, as you like to say, a song and dance.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> This is where you got you information online about the war?
> 
> I asked you for a link that is solely or mainly about the war, with details.
> I've read several, and Wiki has a lot of detail, but some people consider it a viable source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's narrow this down. What do I say about the war that you question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand, it's because I've questioned so many things about what you say concerning the war that I ask for your link. So far I get, as you like to say, a song and dance.
Click to expand...


I have posted a lot of linked material on this thread. What did I miss?


----------



## toastman

All I want is a link for where you get your information concerning the war. If you don't have one, then fine. I'm not gonna beg you for it lol


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you are 180 degrees out of alignment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are absolutely right.  "It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force."  The successor government was designated as the UNPC.  And it was the Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League that first threatened to use force, and then openly attacked the Successor Government and the Implemented Partition by the UNPC that formed the State of Israel.
> 
> Yes you are right in that:
> 
> It is illegal for the "Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" acquire land through the threat "against the UN, UNPC, the UNPC Partition" and the  use of force by the ""Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" to defy the judgement and implementation of the General Assembly as implemented through the Security Council by the UNPC.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one getting this backward.
> 
> What land were the "Arabs" trying to acquire by force?
Click to expand...





The land covered by the Palestinian mandate


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> All I want is a link for where you get your information concerning the war. If you don't have one, then fine. I'm not gonna beg you for it lol



A hundred places most of which I did not bookmark.

Do you have something more specific?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you are 180 degrees out of alignment.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are absolutely right.  "It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force."  The successor government was designated as the UNPC.  And it was the Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League that first threatened to use force, and then openly attacked the Successor Government and the Implemented Partition by the UNPC that formed the State of Israel.
> 
> Yes you are right in that:
> 
> It is illegal for the "Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" acquire land through the threat "against the UN, UNPC, the UNPC Partition" and the  use of force by the ""Arab Higher Committee and the Armies of the Arab League" to defy the judgement and implementation of the General Assembly as implemented through the Security Council by the UNPC.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one getting this backward.
> 
> What land were the "Arabs" trying to acquire by force?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land covered by the Palestinian mandate
Click to expand...


Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support the filistans in their endeavours along those lines, they publicly proclaim that they will not stop until Israel is destroyed and the Jews killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never attempted to acquire land by force.
Click to expand...




They have done nothing else but try since 630CE, now the world is sick of their violence and is saying enough. 1948 they invaded Israel in an attempt at acquiring that land by force, 1967 they did the same thing and again in 1973.   On top of this there are constant terrorist attacks that are attempts to acquire land by the use of force.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The "5 Arab Armies" entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians. Assistance is not illegal. Interference is.*
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks?? They came to assist the Palestinians by destroying a newly founded state. That's what you call assistance ?? And yes that was interference. Who invited them ? You always complain about foreign intervention, but when the Arabs do it, it's fine. Your interpretation of the 1948 war is massive hogwash. You need to stop changing history if you want to be taken seriously. Also, where did you read about the 1948 war?? Show me a link.
> 
> 
> *Hogwash*
> 
> Yes, that seems to be your answer to Roccos comments when you know hes right and you have no argument. I challenge you to tell me what he said that was wrong (what you called hogwash)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you put the 5 Arab armies in quotation marks??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up on the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg
Click to expand...





 Because they were too late to submit the declaration after Israel had declared itself first. You cant claim land that is already a sovereign nations as yours


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's narrow this down. What do I say about the war that you question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand, it's because I've questioned so many things about what you say concerning the war that I ask for your link. So far I get, as you like to say, a song and dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted a lot of linked material on this thread. What did I miss?
Click to expand...






Only the truth and reality.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is a link for where you get your information concerning the war. If you don't have one, then fine. I'm not gonna beg you for it lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hundred places most of which I did not bookmark.
> 
> Do you have something more specific?
Click to expand...





Do you use articles from all sides, or do you only use those that support your actual POV and RACISM


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want is a link for where you get your information concerning the war. If you don't have one, then fine. I'm not gonna beg you for it lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hundred places most of which I did not bookmark.
> 
> Do you have something more specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you use articles from all sides, or do you only use those that support your actual POV and RACISM
Click to expand...


Look at my last link.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one getting this backward.
> 
> What land were the "Arabs" trying to acquire by force?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land covered by the Palestinian mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
Click to expand...





Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate. 
 IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE. 
 Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up on the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were too late to submit the declaration after Israel had declared itself first. You cant claim land that is already a sovereign nations as yours
Click to expand...


I already answered that.

You must have missed it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land covered by the Palestinian mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate.
> IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE.
> Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,
Click to expand...


I already answered that too.

You must have missed it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land covered by the Palestinian mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate.
> IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE.
> Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,
Click to expand...


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hundred places most of which I did not bookmark.
> 
> Do you have something more specific?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you use articles from all sides, or do you only use those that support your actual POV and RACISM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at my last link.
Click to expand...





 Did you bother to read it properly, as it says the exact opposite to what you believe about Palestine being a nation. It also states that the muslims are intent on gaining Israel through force and thumbing their noses at the UN charter. It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land. On top of this the arab league formed a "Palestinian government" with no Palestinians involved . In fact the Palestinians were forced by Jordan to deny the arab league "Palestinian government". Also the name Palestine was abandoned by the muslims of the west bank and was changed to 'West Bank of the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom'. 
 And how it was the inability of the arab league to work together and reach mutual decisions that led to the failure of the Palestinians getting their own nation.

As I said did you bother to read the link, or did you just read the headline and decided that it supported your RACIST POV


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Was 'Independent Palestine' Never Created in 1948?- Zvi Elpeleg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were too late to submit the declaration after Israel had declared itself first. You cant claim land that is already a sovereign nations as yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered that.
> 
> You must have missed it.
Click to expand...





 No you did not, you gave an answer to something completely different. The arab league could not claim land by force under the UN charter, which you don't like because it puts both sides on an equal footing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate.
> IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE.
> Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered that too.
> 
> You must have missed it.
Click to expand...





Maybe you forgot to press return, or did not wake up and type it into your computer. 
 But as always when faced by the harsh reality you deflect and go of at a tangent


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate.
> IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE.
> Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...




Try the many that have been posted in the past, even the ones you posted that show Palestine to be an undefined area that covers many nations in the M.E


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support the filistans in their endeavours along those lines, they publicly proclaim that they will not stop until Israel is destroyed and the Jews killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never attempted to acquire land by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have done nothing else but try since 630CE, now the world is sick of their violence and is saying enough. *1948 they invaded Israel *in an attempt at acquiring that land by force, 1967 they did the same thing and again in 1973.   On top of this there are constant terrorist attacks that are attempts to acquire land by the use of force.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians were at home. Where was this invasion of Israel you are talking about?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate.
> IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE.
> Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try the many that have been posted in the past, even the ones you posted that show Palestine to be an undefined area that covers many nations in the M.E
Click to expand...


Can you link to one of my posts that show that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were too late to submit the declaration after Israel had declared itself first. You cant claim land that is already a sovereign nations as yours
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that.
> 
> You must have missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you did not, you gave an answer to something completely different. The arab league could not claim land by force under the UN charter, which you don't like because it puts both sides on an equal footing.
Click to expand...


What land was the Arab League trying to claim?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was the name of the area covered by the mandate, it could not be called the Syrian mandate or the Iraqi mandate as both were just a small part of the area. So the maps showed a large undefined area covering most of the land area already named as Palestine that fitted the area under mandate.
> IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THE NATION OF PALESTINE EXISTED AND TOOK IN MOST OF THE OTHER NATIONS LAND MASS AS YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE.
> Palestine as a nation has never existed and it is very doubtful that it ever will, even the arab league is against the formation of a Palestinian nation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that too.
> 
> You must have missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you forgot to press return, or did not wake up and type it into your computer.
> But as always when faced by the harsh reality you deflect and go of at a tangent
Click to expand...


I posted clear information, with link, that addressed that question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were too late to submit the declaration after Israel had declared itself first. You cant claim land that is already a sovereign nations as yours
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that.
> 
> You must have missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you did not, you gave an answer to something completely different. The arab league could not claim land by force under the UN charter, which you don't like because it puts both sides on an equal footing.
Click to expand...


I already showed that the Palestinian declaration did encroach on anyone else's territory.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never attempted to acquire land by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have done nothing else but try since 630CE, now the world is sick of their violence and is saying enough. *1948 they invaded Israel *in an attempt at acquiring that land by force, 1967 they did the same thing and again in 1973.   On top of this there are constant terrorist attacks that are attempts to acquire land by the use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home. Where was this invasion of Israel you are talking about?
Click to expand...




 The sovereign nation of Israel granted by UN resolution and declared by the Jews in May 1948. Accepted by all the civilised nations of the world and the UN as set in stone and according to the UN charter.

 Which Palestinians are you referencing, the ones who had been called that for nearly 2,000 years or the ones who would steal the name in 1964 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that too.
> 
> You must have missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you forgot to press return, or did not wake up and type it into your computer.
> But as always when faced by the harsh reality you deflect and go of at a tangent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted clear information, with link, that addressed that question.
Click to expand...





 Wrong you posted HOGWASH and DEFLECTION rather than face the facts and reality that Palestine was never a nation, and had never been recognised as a nation by anyone .


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that.
> 
> You must have missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you did not, you gave an answer to something completely different. The arab league could not claim land by force under the UN charter, which you don't like because it puts both sides on an equal footing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already showed that the Palestinian declaration did encroach on anyone else's territory.
Click to expand...





 So were was the nation of Israel in all this, what provision did the arab league and its minions make for Israel that had been granted the same status as Syria, Iraq, iran, Lebanon and trans Jordan by the same entity and in the same manner ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try the many that have been posted in the past, even the ones you posted that show Palestine to be an undefined area that covers many nations in the M.E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link to one of my posts that show that?
Click to expand...



 NO you made the post and you are now trying to get out of trouble. But here is a definitive article that completely destroys your claims, care to comment

Palestine Boundaries 18331947 - Cambridge Archive Editions

 In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.  *so not set in stone ever*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you use articles from all sides, or do you only use those that support your actual POV and RACISM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my last link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read it properly, as it says the exact opposite to what you believe about Palestine being a nation. It also states that the muslims are intent on gaining Israel through force and thumbing their noses at the UN charter. It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land. On top of this the arab league formed a "Palestinian government" with no Palestinians involved . In fact the Palestinians were forced by Jordan to deny the arab league "Palestinian government". Also the name Palestine was abandoned by the muslims of the west bank and was changed to 'West Bank of the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom'.
> And how it was the inability of the arab league to work together and reach mutual decisions that led to the failure of the Palestinians getting their own nation.
> 
> As I said did you bother to read the link, or did you just read the headline and decided that it supported your RACIST POV
Click to expand...




> It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land.


What this article does not mention was that the West bank was promised to Jordan if it would not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.



> On 17 November, twelve days before the UN met to decide the fate of Palestine, Golda Meir, representing the Jewish Agency in Moshe Sharett's absence, secretly met witk King Abdullah in Naharayim, on the river Jordan, and reached an agreement to divide Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah.
> 
> Golda Meir meets King Abdullah, to agree to divide Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah



Whose land was Jordan taking by force?


----------



## Kondor3

What difference does any of this make?

In 1948, the Jews of Palestine established a nation-state, comprised of all the lands that the Jews of Palestine then controlled, and adding some parcels of land that they took from the Muslims of Palestine in the 1947-1948 timeframe.

Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.

Victory on the battlefield - defined, in this case, by holding-out against the combined assault of five (5) Muslim neighbor nation-states - and the survival of the infant nation-state of Israel - gave substance to this principle.

The declarations of the provisional rump Palestinian government of those early years - eventually dissolved by the Arabs themselves - and the declarations of the Arab League - and the declarations of individual Muslim nation-state neighbors - held that the Muslims intended to destroy the new State of Israel and to recover all of the lands under its control and return them to Muslim control, after dealing with the Jewish population.

One need do no more than dredge-up one of those old declarations, referencing 'all of Palestine' (meaning the including of lands then comprising the new State of Israel), and then find tactical maps showing the lands controlled by the Jews as of a given point in time [1948, 1967, whatever], to demonstrate in geographical terms, the intentions of the Muslims.

What difference does any of this make?

Title-deed to the land has changed hands.

Written in blood.

Blood, and, more importantly, victory on the battlefield, changes everything.

The Palestinians have been defeated.

They now exist only at the whim and pleasure of the Israelis, who could destroy them utterly any time they wished, so long as they were prepared for an adverse reaction beyond their borders.

Thus, the Israelis define victory.

Thus, the rest of the world defines defeat.

Thus, the Palestinians define a temporary setback.

Time will tell us which of those perspectives is the most rational and sane.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> What difference does any of this make?
> 
> In 1948, the Jews of Palestine established a nation-state, comprised of all the lands that the Jews of Palestine then controlled, and adding some parcels of land that they took from the Muslims of Palestine in the 1947-1948 timeframe.
> 
> Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield - defined, in this case, by holding-out against the combined assault of five (5) Muslim neighbor nation-states - and the survival of the infant nation-state of Israel - gave substance to this principle.
> 
> The declarations of the provisional rump Palestinian government of those early years - eventually dissolved by the Arabs themselves - and the declarations of the Arab League - and the declarations of individual Muslim nation-state neighbors - held that the Muslims intended to destroy the new State of Israel and to recover all of the lands under its control and return them to Muslim control, after dealing with the Jewish population.
> 
> One need do no more than dredge-up one of those old declarations, referencing 'all of Palestine' (meaning the including of lands then comprising the new State of Israel), and then find tactical maps showing the lands controlled by the Jews as of a given point in time [1948, 1967, whatever], to demonstrate in geographical terms, the intentions of the Muslims.
> 
> What difference does any of this make?
> 
> Title-deed to the land has changed hands.
> 
> Written in blood.
> 
> Blood, and, more importantly, victory on the battlefield, changes everything.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defeated.
> 
> They now exist only at the whim and pleasure of the Israelis, who could destroy them utterly any time they wished, so long as they were prepared for an adverse reaction beyond their borders.
> 
> Thus, the Israelis define victory.
> 
> Thus, the rest of the world defines defeat.
> 
> Thus, the Palestinians define a temporary setback.
> 
> Time will tell us which of those perspectives is the most rational and sane.





> Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel,* both de facto and de jure.*



Do you have a link to that de jure part?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should also note that there was a hand-off to the Successor Government (UNPC): Very IMPORTANT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?
> 
> Did Israel win its land from the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the filistans for that matter ?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians did not have to win anything. They were already living in Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK, we can address this (again).



P F Tinmore said:


> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?


*(COMMENT)*

This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US.  Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things.  Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.



			
				Further subdivisions:  Regions of Saudi Arabia said:
			
		

> See the Governorates of Saudi Arabia page]
> 
> There is a division into four provinces, on a historical basis. *Their boundaries do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.* The regions are subdivided into governorates.
> 
> Territorial extent:
> 
> Ash Sharq&#299;yah contains all of Saudi Arabia's islands in the Persian Gulf: Al `Arabiyah, Abu `Ali, Al Batinah, Tarut, Harqus, Karan, Kurayn, Al Jurayd, and others.
> J&#299;zan includes the Farasan Islands in the Red Sea.
> Makkah includes Qishran, Sirrayn, Abu Latt, and other Red Sea islands.
> Tab&#363;k includes the islands of Tiran, Sanafir, Al Hasani, Shaybara, Mashabih, and others along the Red Sea coast.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Regional Governorates



The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres.  Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.  The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).  You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments."  This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.



			
				 Part III said:
			
		

> *ARTICLE 95.*
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, *the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers,* to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.​
> *SOURCE:* Treaty of Sevres





P F Tinmore said:


> What land was the Arab League trying to claim?


*(COMMENT)*

Two facts impact this question.  First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].



			
				ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE (PALESTINE) - Umbrella organization formed in 1936 to represent the Palestinian Arabs. said:
			
		

> The AHC was moribund during World War II. *In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis.* The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE DECLARATION OF THE ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE FOR PALESTINE  May 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN Question (D) If so, what governments and for what purpose?
> 
> AHC Answer: The Arab Higher Committee solicited assistance of the following Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan, in order to reinstate peace and order in Palestine. Their purpose and task is one of pacification and not of invasion. It has been made clear that once peace and order are restored, the people of Palestine of all creeds will exercise freely their right of self-determination in a general plebiscite.​
> UN Question (E) Have you named representatives to deal with the Security Council Truce Commission for the purpose of effecting the Truce called for by the Security Council?
> 
> AHC Answer: Since the entrance of regular Arab troops in Palestine, this matter was taken over by the Arab League, in which the Arab Higher Committee is represented.​
> UN Question (F) Have Jewish forces penetrated into the territory in which you claim to have authority?
> 
> AHC Answer: *Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine* as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.​
> *SOURCE:* S/775  24 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Higher Committee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A committee of the same name was *reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.* It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
> *SOURCE:* From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright
Click to expand...


In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated:  "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."

I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of this make?
> 
> In 1948, the Jews of Palestine established a nation-state, comprised of all the lands that the Jews of Palestine then controlled, and adding some parcels of land that they took from the Muslims of Palestine in the 1947-1948 timeframe.
> 
> Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield - defined, in this case, by holding-out against the combined assault of five (5) Muslim neighbor nation-states - and the survival of the infant nation-state of Israel - gave substance to this principle.
> 
> The declarations of the provisional rump Palestinian government of those early years - eventually dissolved by the Arabs themselves - and the declarations of the Arab League - and the declarations of individual Muslim nation-state neighbors - held that the Muslims intended to destroy the new State of Israel and to recover all of the lands under its control and return them to Muslim control, after dealing with the Jewish population.
> 
> One need do no more than dredge-up one of those old declarations, referencing 'all of Palestine' (meaning the including of lands then comprising the new State of Israel), and then find tactical maps showing the lands controlled by the Jews as of a given point in time [1948, 1967, whatever], to demonstrate in geographical terms, the intentions of the Muslims.
> 
> What difference does any of this make?
> 
> Title-deed to the land has changed hands.
> 
> Written in blood.
> 
> Blood, and, more importantly, victory on the battlefield, changes everything.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defeated.
> 
> They now exist only at the whim and pleasure of the Israelis, who could destroy them utterly any time they wished, so long as they were prepared for an adverse reaction beyond their borders.
> 
> Thus, the Israelis define victory.
> 
> Thus, the rest of the world defines defeat.
> 
> Thus, the Palestinians define a temporary setback.
> 
> Time will tell us which of those perspectives is the most rational and sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel,* both de facto and de jure.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that de jure part?
Click to expand...

Nope.

You can go digging through the Israeli's own Corpus Juris if you like.

I haven't got the time; nor the need.

Unless, of course, you believe that Israeli Law does not recognize Israeli ownership of the lands they control.

*Israeli* Law now governs those lands; backed by Israeli muscle.

The rest is meaningless background noise and ancient history that will never again be operative in connection with those lands.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you did not, you gave an answer to something completely different. The arab league could not claim land by force under the UN charter, which you don't like because it puts both sides on an equal footing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed that the Palestinian declaration did encroach on anyone else's territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * So were was the nation of Israel in all this*, what provision did the arab league and its minions make for Israel that had been granted the same status as Syria, Iraq, iran, Lebanon and trans Jordan by the same entity and in the same manner ?
Click to expand...


Excellent question.

Perhaps you could post a 1948 map of Israel showing where it was during all this.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does any of this make?
> 
> In 1948, the Jews of Palestine established a nation-state, comprised of all the lands that the Jews of Palestine then controlled, and adding some parcels of land that they took from the Muslims of Palestine in the 1947-1948 timeframe.
> 
> Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield - defined, in this case, by holding-out against the combined assault of five (5) Muslim neighbor nation-states - and the survival of the infant nation-state of Israel - gave substance to this principle.
> 
> The declarations of the provisional rump Palestinian government of those early years - eventually dissolved by the Arabs themselves - and the declarations of the Arab League - and the declarations of individual Muslim nation-state neighbors - held that the Muslims intended to destroy the new State of Israel and to recover all of the lands under its control and return them to Muslim control, after dealing with the Jewish population.
> 
> One need do no more than dredge-up one of those old declarations, referencing 'all of Palestine' (meaning the including of lands then comprising the new State of Israel), and then find tactical maps showing the lands controlled by the Jews as of a given point in time [1948, 1967, whatever], to demonstrate in geographical terms, the intentions of the Muslims.
> 
> What difference does any of this make?
> 
> Title-deed to the land has changed hands.
> 
> Written in blood.
> 
> Blood, and, more importantly, victory on the battlefield, changes everything.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defeated.
> 
> They now exist only at the whim and pleasure of the Israelis, who could destroy them utterly any time they wished, so long as they were prepared for an adverse reaction beyond their borders.
> 
> Thus, the Israelis define victory.
> 
> Thus, the rest of the world defines defeat.
> 
> Thus, the Palestinians define a temporary setback.
> 
> Time will tell us which of those perspectives is the most rational and sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel,* both de facto and de jure.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that de jure part?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope.*
> 
> You can go digging through the Israeli's own Corpus Juris if you like.
> 
> I haven't got the time; nor the need.
> 
> Unless, of course, you believe that Israeli Law does not recognize Israeli ownership of the lands they control.
> 
> *Israeli* Law now governs those lands; backed by Israeli muscle.
> 
> The rest is meaningless background noise and ancient history that will never again be operative in connection with those lands.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke._"


Incorrect.

I merely cut the Gordian Knot.

Former legal status, in connection with a nonexistent nation-state called Palestine, do not signify.

Then again, given the present abject state of defeat in which your beloved Palestinians operate, trying to keep old legal arguments alive is the only magic trick left in the bottom of a now-empty bag of Palestinian tricks.

Israeli Law now governs those lands.

Israeli Law recognizes the new owners.

I do not feel like wasting my time proving the point, because you will merely ignore it and continue to bleat-on about former legal status - the only card you have left to play.

My unwillingness to waste my time looking for the particular Acts and Statutes within the Corpus Juris of Israeli Law, which recognize new ownership, does not negate nor invalidate the assertion, nor does it constitute 'blowing smoke'.

I'm sure that any of a couple of dozen folks around here - interested in meeting that particular challenge - can do a better job than I - of dredging-up the particular Israeli statutes which recognize new land ownership in that region.

Me - I've dealt with you long enough - off and on - to realize that that is a waste of time.

1. The Israelis are in possession of those lands.

2. The Israelis have passed laws recognizing the change in land ownership.

3. Israeli Law in such matters overrides any old legal status to the contrary.

4. Israeli military muscle makes (1) thru (3) operative in the Real World.

Somebody else can respond to your juvenile and never-ending 'link?' response here.

If you believe (1) thru (4) above are incorrect, you are welcome to dispute them.

And I won't even ask you for a link.

So long as you argue the points using your own thoughts and words, rather than a boring and never-ending cut-and-paste recital of other people's thoughts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we can address this (again).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US.  Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things.  Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further subdivisions:  Regions of Saudi Arabia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the Governorates of Saudi Arabia page]
> 
> There is a division into four provinces, on a historical basis. *Their boundaries do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.* The regions are subdivided into governorates.
> 
> Territorial extent:
> 
> Ash Sharq&#299;yah contains all of Saudi Arabia's islands in the Persian Gulf: Al `Arabiyah, Abu `Ali, Al Batinah, Tarut, Harqus, Karan, Kurayn, Al Jurayd, and others.
> J&#299;zan includes the Farasan Islands in the Red Sea.
> Makkah includes Qishran, Sirrayn, Abu Latt, and other Red Sea islands.
> Tab&#363;k includes the islands of Tiran, Sanafir, Al Hasani, Shaybara, Mashabih, and others along the Red Sea coast.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Regional Governorates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres.  Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.  The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).  You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments."  This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Two facts impact this question.  First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE (PALESTINE) - Umbrella organization formed in 1936 to represent the Palestinian Arabs. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AHC was moribund during World War II. *In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis.* The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Higher Committee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A committee of the same name was *reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.* It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
> *SOURCE:* From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated:  "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."
> 
> I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


*Holy verbosity, Batman!* Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke._"
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> I merely cut the Gordian Knot.
> 
> Former legal status, in connection with a nonexistent nation-state called Palestine, do not signify.
> 
> Then again, given the present abject state of defeat in which your beloved Palestinians operate, trying to keep old legal arguments alive is the only magic trick left in the bottom of a now-empty bag of Palestinian tricks.
> 
> Israeli Law now governs those lands.
> 
> Israeli Law recognizes the new owners.
> 
> I do not feel like wasting my time proving the point, because you will merely ignore it and continue to bleat-on about former legal status - the only card you have left to play.
> 
> My unwillingness to waste my time looking for the particular Acts and Statutes within the Corpus Juris of Israeli Law, which recognize new ownership, does not negate nor invalidate the assertion, nor does it constitute 'blowing smoke'.
> 
> I'm sure that any of a couple of dozen folks around here - interested in meeting that particular challenge - can do a better job than I - of dredging-up the particular Israeli statutes which recognize new land ownership in that region.
> 
> Me - I've dealt with you long enough - off and on - to realize that that is a waste of time.
> 
> 1. The Israelis are in possession of those lands.
> 
> 2. The Israelis have passed laws recognizing the change in land ownership.
> 
> 3. Israeli Law in such matters overrides any old legal status to the contrary.
> 
> 4. Israeli military muscle makes (1) thru (3) operative in the Real World.
> 
> Somebody else can respond to your juvenile and never-ending 'link?' response here.
> 
> If you believe (1) thru (4) above are incorrect, you are welcome to dispute them.
> 
> And I won't even ask you for a link.
> 
> So long as you argue the points using your own thoughts and words, rather than a boring and never-ending cut-and-paste recital of other people's thoughts.
Click to expand...




> ...former legal status...



Former???

When did that legal status change?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Former??? When did that legal status change?_"


The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Former??? When did that legal status change?_"
> 
> 
> 
> The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.
Click to expand...


Israeli local law trumps international law?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Former??? When did that legal status change?_"
> 
> 
> 
> The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli local law trumps international law?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Just as United States Law trumps International Law.

Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli local law trumps international law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Just as United States Law trumps International Law.
> 
> Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.
Click to expand...


The US can pass laws for Brazil?

I don't think that would jive with international law.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli local law trumps international law?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Just as United States Law trumps International Law.
> 
> Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US can pass laws for Brazil?
> 
> I don't think that would jive with international law.
Click to expand...

No.

The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.

But it *CAN* pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.

After determining for itself what its borders should be.

Just as Israel has done.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Just as United States Law trumps International Law.
> 
> Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US can pass laws for Brazil?
> 
> I don't think that would jive with international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.
> 
> But it *CAN* pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.
> 
> After determining for itself what its borders should be.
> 
> Just as Israel has done.
Click to expand...


Oh really. Where are Israel's self defined borders?

BTW, I should not have said Brazil. Hawaii is a much better example. Hawaii was listed at the UN as a non self governing territory under US management. The US wanted to annex this land for its 50th state.

It was illegal for the US to annex this land without the approval of the indigenous population. They had to hold a referendum to get the approval of the people in order to annex that land even though they were not a sovereign state.

Was there a referendum for the Palestinians to approve the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US can pass laws for Brazil?
> 
> I don't think that would jive with international law.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.
> 
> But it *CAN* pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.
> 
> After determining for itself what its borders should be.
> 
> Just as Israel has done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really...
Click to expand...

Yes, Tinny, really.



> "...Where are Israel's self defined borders?..."


I dunno. Go find an official Israeli government map that illustrates its self-defined territory and borders. Should be easy enough.



> "..._BTW, I should not have said Brazil. Hawaii is a much better example. Hawaii was listed at the UN as a non self governing territory under US management. The US wanted to annex this land for its 50th state. It was illegal for the US to annex this land without the approval of the indigenous population. They had to hold a referendum to get the approval of the people in order to annex that land even though they were not a sovereign state_..."


Most US States admitted to the Union (after the original 13) held a referendum or constitutional vote of some kind - a tradition steeped in US rather than international law. Frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that relevant international law was inspired by US law and traditions regarding popular referendums on the subject of statehood.



> "..._Was there a referendum for the Palestinians to approve the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel?_"


No.

The Palestinian Jews incorporated within the confines of (a) the lands they already owned and controlled at the time of the declaration and (b) adding the lands which they took as spoils of war after the declaration.

And, given that neither the Palestinian Jews nor the Palestinian Muslims were as yet an organized and chartered polity (nation-state), neither were obliged to adhere to any UN guidelines or statute at the time of the formation of the State of Israel, and right up to the time of Israel's admittance to the United Nations.

The Palestinian Jews were under no obligation to sponsor a referendum of Palestinian Muslims in order to carve a Jewish State from the carcass of Mandate Palestine, because they were not (as yet) under any obligation to conduct such a referendum as of the point-in-time at which they declared Statehood and as of the point-in-time immediately prior to their admission to the United Nations.

The Palestinian Jews did not conduct such a referendum because they saw no need.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my last link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read it properly, as it says the exact opposite to what you believe about Palestine being a nation. It also states that the muslims are intent on gaining Israel through force and thumbing their noses at the UN charter. It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land. On top of this the arab league formed a "Palestinian government" with no Palestinians involved . In fact the Palestinians were forced by Jordan to deny the arab league "Palestinian government". Also the name Palestine was abandoned by the muslims of the west bank and was changed to 'West Bank of the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom'.
> And how it was the inability of the arab league to work together and reach mutual decisions that led to the failure of the Palestinians getting their own nation.
> 
> As I said did you bother to read the link, or did you just read the headline and decided that it supported your RACIST POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What this article does not mention was that the West bank was promised to Jordan if it would not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 November, twelve days before the UN met to decide the fate of Palestine, Golda Meir, representing the Jewish Agency in Moshe Sharett's absence, secretly met witk King Abdullah in Naharayim, on the river Jordan, and reached an agreement to divide Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah.
> 
> Golda Meir meets King Abdullah, to agree to divide Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose land was Jordan taking by force?
Click to expand...




Wrong as the truth is the British agreed to allow Jordan to annexe the west bank and Jerusalem before the mandate was given up. The UN were not aware of this happening until much later.

And the devious muslims decided to take it all, and then try for Israel's land as well. Isn't that so ?

What you now call Palestine and the International city of Jerusalem.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?
> 
> Did Israel win its land from the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the filistans for that matter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did not have to win anything. They were already living in Palestine.
Click to expand...




 Nor did the Israeli's as they were also living in Palestine/Israel. But they had one LARGE advantage they had a nation state that was recognised by International treaty.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we can address this (again).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US.  Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things.  Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.
> 
> 
> 
> The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres.  Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.  The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).  You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments."  This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Two facts impact this question.  First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE (PALESTINE) - Umbrella organization formed in 1936 to represent the Palestinian Arabs. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AHC was moribund during World War II. *In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis.* The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated:  "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."
> 
> I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Holy verbosity, Batman!* Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?
Click to expand...


He did answer your question, learn to read.
And Rocco gives a lot of effort to answer your questions, and back his comments up with links (unlike you), and then you give him your usual responses.

If you don't like the answer , don't ask the question


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed that the Palestinian declaration did encroach on anyone else's territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * So were was the nation of Israel in all this*, what provision did the arab league and its minions make for Israel that had been granted the same status as Syria, Iraq, iran, Lebanon and trans Jordan by the same entity and in the same manner ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> Perhaps you could post a 1948 map of Israel showing where it was during all this.
Click to expand...




 See the UN partition plan of the area as that defined the May 1948 borders of Israel, as of their declaration of independence. This was later mollified by the cease fire line of 1949 which showed that Israel had lost land to force. Once the UN had set this precedence they could not at a later date alter their minds.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we can address this (again).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, why was it called the *Palestine* mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US.  Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things.  Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.
> 
> 
> 
> The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres.  Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.  The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).  You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments."  This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Two facts impact this question.  First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE (PALESTINE) - Umbrella organization formed in 1936 to represent the Palestinian Arabs. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AHC was moribund during World War II. *In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis.* The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated:  "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."
> 
> I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Holy verbosity, Batman!* Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?
Click to expand...




 It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Former??? When did that legal status change?_"
> 
> 
> 
> The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli local law trumps international law?
Click to expand...




 What International Law applies ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli local law trumps international law?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Just as United States Law trumps International Law.
> 
> Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US can pass laws for Brazil?
> 
> I don't think that would jive with international law.
Click to expand...




 If Brazil is in the US then YES


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US can pass laws for Brazil?
> 
> I don't think that would jive with international law.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.
> 
> But it *CAN* pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.
> 
> After determining for itself what its borders should be.
> 
> Just as Israel has done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really. Where are Israel's self defined borders?
> 
> BTW, I should not have said Brazil. Hawaii is a much better example. Hawaii was listed at the UN as a non self governing territory under US management. The US wanted to annex this land for its 50th state.
> 
> It was illegal for the US to annex this land without the approval of the indigenous population. They had to hold a referendum to get the approval of the people in order to annex that land even though they were not a sovereign state.
> 
> Was there a referendum for the Palestinians to approve the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel?
Click to expand...




 Was there one for the Jews to approve the annexation of their property by the arab league ?..............................IF NOT WHY NOT, and why did the UN allow Jordan to acquire Jewish land by force when it was plainly against the UN charter.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we can address this (again).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US.  Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things.  Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.
> 
> 
> 
> The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres.  Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries.  The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).  You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments."  This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Two facts impact this question.  First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].
> 
> 
> 
> In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated:  "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."
> 
> I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Holy verbosity, Batman!* Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.
Click to expand...


You are basing your conclusion on false premise. Therefore you are coming to a false conclusion.



> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Holy verbosity, Batman!* Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusion on false premise. Therefore you are coming to a false conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with the name 'Palestine'


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusion on false premise. Therefore you are coming to a false conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the name 'Palestine'
Click to expand...




A rose by any other name...


----------



## toastman

I meant to say it has nothing to do with the origin of the name Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> I meant to say it has nothing to do with the origin of the name Palestine



And a name is relevant how? If it was called Bologna, how would that matter?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Holy verbosity, Batman!* Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusion on false premise. Therefore you are coming to a false conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




 NO! I am basing my words on the HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY of the area. There has never been a nation of Palestine, and the way things are going there never will be. What you define as the international borders of Palestine are no such thing as historically Palestine extended outside these borders, you are fooled by the international borders of Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. These International borders delineate the borders of these countries only they don't delineate the borders of Palestine. That has to come about through mutual agreement and treaty.

 For the record Palestine was under mandate or control it was not under guardianship. If you persist in your false claims then we will need to let the UN know that Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Saudi will have to be disbanded and the land given to the P.A.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusion on false premise. Therefore you are coming to a false conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, *citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state* in which they had already been residing.
> 
> In a broader international context, the *Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> *Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory.* It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the name 'Palestine'
Click to expand...





 Every time he posts this crap he destroys his own argument as Palestine was never a state to be dissolved, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. If what he says is correct then the Palestinians are British and French as they are the states that took over the helm.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusion on false premise. Therefore you are coming to a false conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the name 'Palestine'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rose by any other name...
Click to expand...





 Let me see if I understand your thinking correctly the Ottoman empire was disnabded and along with it the muslims nationality for those living in Palestine. The British and French took over the reigns meaning that the muslims living in Palestine then become British and French citizens, only limited to what rights the new rulers extend to them. 
 So they have no claim to the land of Palestine in view of your source.   That has cleared it up nicely.     NO PALESTINE AND NO PALESTINIANS


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to say it has nothing to do with the origin of the name Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a name is relevant how? If it was called Bologna, how would that matter?
Click to expand...





 It would be in Spain, and the muslims would adorn the pikes on the city walls


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to say it has nothing to do with the origin of the name Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a name is relevant how? If it was called Bologna, how would that matter?
Click to expand...


YOU asked the question, FFS !!

You asked Tinmore why is it called the 'Palestine' Mandate. To answer that question, don't you think the origin of the name needs to be brought up??


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to say it has nothing to do with the origin of the name Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a name is relevant how? If it was called Bologna, how would that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU asked the question, FFS !!
> 
> You asked Tinmore why is it called the 'Palestine' Mandate. To answer that question, don't you think the origin of the name needs to be brought up??
Click to expand...


After the Romans put down a third rebellion by the Jews and exiled many of them, they renamed the area Palestine after the Philistines, a people that no longer existed.  They did this spitefully, to rid Judea of any Jewish connection.


----------



## RoccoR

ForeverYoung436, toastman, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I always shy away from using this word, either as a noun or adjective:



ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a name is relevant how? If it was called Bologna, how would that matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU asked the question, FFS !!
> 
> You asked Tinmore why is it called the 'Palestine' Mandate. To answer that question, don't you think the origin of the name needs to be brought up??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the Romans put down a third rebellion by the Jews and exiled many of them, they renamed the area Palestine after the Philistines, a people that no longer existed.  They did this spitefully, to rid Judea of any Jewish connection.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				Philistine said:
			
		

> (f&#301;l'&#301;-st&#275;n', f&#301;-l&#301;s't&#301;n, -t&#275;n') pronunciation
> 
> n.
> A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C.
> 
> A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values.
> One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.
> 
> adj.
> Of or relating to ancient Philistia.
> often philistine Boorish; barbarous: "our plastic, violent culture, with its philistine tastes and hunger for novelty" (Lloyd Rose).
> 
> [From Middle English Philistines, Philistines, from Late Latin Philist&#299;n&#299;, from Greek Philist&#299;noi, from Hebrew P&#601;litîm, from P&#601;leet, Philistia.]
> 
> *WORD HISTORY *
> 
> It has never been good to be a Philistine. In the Bible Samson, Saul, and David helped bring the Philistines into prominence because they were such prominent opponents. Though the Philistines have long since disappeared, their name has lived on in the Hebrew Scriptures. The English name for them, Philistines, which goes back through Late Latin and Greek to Hebrew, is first found in Middle English, where Philistiens, the ancestor of our word, is recorded in a work composed before 1325. Beginning in the 17th century philistine was used as a common noun, usually in the plural, to refer to various groups considered the enemy, such as literary critics. In Germany in the same century it is said that in a memorial at Jena for a student killed in a town-gown quarrel, the minister preached a sermon from the text "Philister über dir Simson! [The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!]," the words of Delilah to Samson after she attempted to render him powerless before his Philistine enemies. From this usage it is said that German students came to use Philister, the German equivalent of Philistine, to denote nonstudents and hence uncultured or materialistic people. Both usages were picked up in English in the early 19th century.​
> *Read more:* Philistine: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com


*(COMMENT)*

This word nearly always starts a dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the name 'Palestine'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rose by any other name...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your thinking correctly the Ottoman empire was disnabded and along with it the muslims nationality for those living in Palestine. *The British and French took over the reigns meaning that the muslims living in Palestine then become British and French citizens,* only limited to what rights the new rulers extend to them.
> So they have no claim to the land of Palestine in view of your source.   That has cleared it up nicely.     NO PALESTINE AND NO PALESTINIANS
Click to expand...


Not true.



> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel



Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?

Just curious.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rose by any other name...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your thinking correctly the Ottoman empire was disnabded and along with it the muslims nationality for those living in Palestine. *The British and French took over the reigns meaning that the muslims living in Palestine then become British and French citizens,* only limited to what rights the new rulers extend to them.
> So they have no claim to the land of Palestine in view of your source.   That has cleared it up nicely.     NO PALESTINE AND NO PALESTINIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


I've asked you that question concerning the 1948 war and the events prior and following it. I still havent gotten a link


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your thinking correctly the Ottoman empire was disnabded and along with it the muslims nationality for those living in Palestine. *The British and French took over the reigns meaning that the muslims living in Palestine then become British and French citizens,* only limited to what rights the new rulers extend to them.
> So they have no claim to the land of Palestine in view of your source.   That has cleared it up nicely.     NO PALESTINE AND NO PALESTINIANS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked you that question concerning the 1948 war and the events prior and following it. I still havent gotten a link
Click to expand...


You want to know where I got my information?

UN documents
International law, treaties
Avalon Project, Yale
Palestine Encyclopedia
Israel, MFA
Wikipedia
1948.org.uk
Jewish Virtual Library
Palestine Remembered
Bennie Morris
Ilan Pappe
Etc.

Is this what you wanted?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rose by any other name...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your thinking correctly the Ottoman empire was disnabded and along with it the muslims nationality for those living in Palestine. *The British and French took over the reigns meaning that the muslims living in Palestine then become British and French citizens,* only limited to what rights the new rulers extend to them.
> So they have no claim to the land of Palestine in view of your source.   That has cleared it up nicely.     NO PALESTINE AND NO PALESTINIANS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...




 Your own post and the cut and paste you relied on to show that you were right and the world was wrong.

 Here it is and as I said they lost Ottoman nationality and gained limited British and French as they were the successive states

*In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.*
The operative word is SOVERIEGNTY.  They could not take on Jordanian nationality as that was not formed yet, nor could they take on Palestinian nationality for the same reason so they became limited British and French nationals


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you that question concerning the 1948 war and the events prior and following it. I still havent gotten a link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to know where I got my information?
> 
> UN documents
> International law, treaties
> Avalon Project, Yale
> Palestine Encyclopedia
> Israel, MFA
> Wikipedia
> 1948.org.uk
> Jewish Virtual Library
> Palestine Remembered
> Bennie Morris
> Ilan Pappe
> Etc.
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
Click to expand...





 And you cherrypick only the parts that support your personal POV and ride them into the ground, when shown that you are wrong you quickly jump ship and bring up the next snippet of disinformation. 
     Now once and for all what was the capital city of Palestine, what was its currency called, who have been its leaders over the last 2,000 years, what did its original flag look like, what is its national symbol and finally who recognised its right to exist as a nation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your thinking correctly the Ottoman empire was disnabded and along with it the muslims nationality for those living in Palestine. *The British and French took over the reigns meaning that the muslims living in Palestine then become British and French citizens,* only limited to what rights the new rulers extend to them.
> So they have no claim to the land of Palestine in view of your source.   That has cleared it up nicely.     NO PALESTINE AND NO PALESTINIANS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own post and the cut and paste you relied on to show that you were right and the world was wrong.
> 
> Here it is and as I said they lost Ottoman nationality and gained limited British and French as they were the successive states
> 
> *In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.*
> The operative word is SOVERIEGNTY.  They could not take on Jordanian nationality as that was not formed yet, nor could they take on Palestinian nationality for the same reason so they became limited British and French nationals
Click to expand...


Mandates are not successor states. they are assigned to successor states. The people under mandate do not take on the nationality or citizenship of the mandatory.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Sally said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, Pbel, you should have your good friend Abbas take a look at Edwin Black and what he has to say.
> 
> EDWIN BLACK ON C-SPAN: THE FARHUD: THE ROOTS OF THE ARAB-NAZI ALLIANCE DURING WWII??. |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooperation with the Nazi Intelligence Services
> 
> During the first days of fascist domination in Germany, the Zionists held a direct line to the fascist repression apparatus which developed into loose collaboration between the Zionist leadership and the terror organizations of the Nazi Reich (the Gestapo, SS, etc). Before 1933, the Zionist official, Leo Plaut, already "had a connection" with the political police and with the police official Oberregierungsrat Rudolf Diels (supposedly a schoolfriend of Plaut). When Diels was first appointed chief of the secret police in 1933, he retained his connection with Plaut. "Indeed Plaut even had the secret telephone number of Diels and could call him anytime."58 One can only speculate about the details of these contacts because the documents regarding them are kept under lock and key at the Yad-Vashem archives in Jerusalem. However, it is to be supposed that it was through these contacts that a meeting was arranged between the then Prussian Prime Minister Hermann Goering (later sentenced to death by the Nuremberg International Tribunal as a war criminal) and the leaders of German Jewish organizations. The meeting took place on March 26, 1933. Among the representatives of the Zionists taking part was the official, Kurt Blumenfeld, but he was silent about this episode in his memoirs.59
> 
> https://workspaces.acrobat.com/app.html#d=kvXmy4Qvmo1Cfwo5qYbT5A
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boo hoo, it looks like we have another poster here who is angry that the Jews supplied the Nazis with some equipment in exchange for some Jews.  No doubt this poster also would have like to have seen those Jews sent to the concentration camps.  Maybe he would be a good candidate to join the Golden Dawn group in Greece.  They need people like him.
Click to expand...


Lol, shoot the messenger and throw a bit of mud, dont address the facts


----------



## Spiderman

I was out with a woman the other night who told me she would not bl...... oh wait you said bow never mind.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own post and the cut and paste you relied on to show that you were right and the world was wrong.
> 
> Here it is and as I said they lost Ottoman nationality and gained limited British and French as they were the successive states
> 
> *In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.*
> The operative word is SOVERIEGNTY.  They could not take on Jordanian nationality as that was not formed yet, nor could they take on Palestinian nationality for the same reason so they became limited British and French nationals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mandates are not successor states. they are assigned to successor states. The people under mandate do not take on the nationality or citizenship of the mandatory.
Click to expand...





 So when did Palestine become a fully fledged legally recognised sovereign nation then, because the lawmakers don't know and the arab league don't know and the world don't know when this miracle happened.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you that question concerning the 1948 war and the events prior and following it. I still havent gotten a link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to know where I got my information?
> 
> UN documents
> International law, treaties
> Avalon Project, Yale
> Palestine Encyclopedia
> Israel, MFA
> Wikipedia
> 1948.org.uk
> Jewish Virtual Library
> Palestine Remembered
> Bennie Morris
> Ilan Pappe
> Etc.
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you cherrypick only the parts that support your personal POV and ride them into the ground, when shown that you are wrong you quickly jump ship and bring up the next snippet of disinformation.
> Now once and for all what was the capital city of Palestine, what was its currency called, who have been its leaders over the last 2,000 years, what did its original flag look like, what is its national symbol and finally who recognised its right to exist as a nation.
Click to expand...


All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.

Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.

When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*

All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.

As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.

The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.

External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh, for heaven's sake!



P F Tinmore said:


> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*
> 
> All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.


*(COMMENT)*

1)  In 1924, the international borders in the region were, whatever the Allied Powers decided they would be.

Going chronologically:

Egypt:  Independence - 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)
Lebanon:  Independence - 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
Syria:  Independence - 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
Jordan:  Independence - 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
Israel:  Independence - Midnight-14/15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)





2)  In 1924, Nationality and Citizenship of both the indigenous and immigrant populations were covered in Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Mandate.  Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate Territory under international law, under the authority of the treaty and League of Nations.

3)  The mission of the Mandatory was to develop the capacity in the population (indigenous and immigrant) to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and social and other institutions on a more secure footing in order to fit them to take their position as independent nations; - and - apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.

4)  In a Class "A" Mandate, an "external interference" would be anything influence injected into the administration of the territory other than that of the Mandatory having full administrative and legislative powers.

5)  In 1924, The "right of self-determination" was whatever the Mandatory and League of Nations said the right was.  "The universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, (A/RES/49/148 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994).

6)  Yes, the "external interference" of the Arab League to the Jewish right to self-determination is illegal.  It was, by their own admission, acts of foreign military
intervention, aggression and occupation, to interfere with the Implementation by the Security Council _(actioned by the UNPC)_ of the final steps to independence of the Jewish People, and the suppression of their right to self-determination as afforded to them through resolution by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to know where I got my information?
> 
> UN documents
> International law, treaties
> Avalon Project, Yale
> Palestine Encyclopedia
> Israel, MFA
> Wikipedia
> 1948.org.uk
> Jewish Virtual Library
> Palestine Remembered
> Bennie Morris
> Ilan Pappe
> Etc.
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you cherrypick only the parts that support your personal POV and ride them into the ground, when shown that you are wrong you quickly jump ship and bring up the next snippet of disinformation.
> Now once and for all what was the capital city of Palestine, what was its currency called, who have been its leaders over the last 2,000 years, what did its original flag look like, what is its national symbol and finally who recognised its right to exist as a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*
> 
> All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.
Click to expand...





 No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.

 When the ottoman empire came to an end Palestine the area took in all of trans Jordan part of Saudi, part of Egypt, part of Lebanon and part of Syria. You are trying to mix the 1919 extent of the Ottoman empire with the as yet to be proposed partition plan of 1948. in a futile attempt at fooling people.

 How could they when there was no nation of Palestine, and the nations that took over were Britain and France. Even the passports for the residents of the British mandate for Palestine said they were British subjects.

 What defined territory would that be then as Palestine was never defined, so once again bringing us back to the nation being Britain or France.

 The things I mention are all signs of being a nation, without any of them being in place then there was no nation of Palestine. As an example the British mandate issued passports, stamps and currency for the mandate for Palestine which were drawn on British and Jewish banks. At no time were they drawn on muslim banks as they worked on a different system.

 So the external influence by the arab league was illegal and thus negates the attempt to claim Palestine as a nation.

 Every argument you use is defeated by the one preceding it and shows that you are not looking at the matter in a critical manner. You cherrypick the part you see that supports your POV while overlooking the whole that defeats your POV.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:
			
		

> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.



Could you prove that statement like a link or something?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:
			
		

> How could they when there was no nation of Palestine, and the nations that took over were Britain and France. Even the passports for the residents of the British mandate for Palestine said they were British subjects.





> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel



Post something that proves otherwise.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, for heaven's sake!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*
> 
> All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1)  In 1924, the international borders in the region were, whatever the Allied Powers decided they would be.
> 
> Going chronologically:
> 
> Egypt:  Independence - 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)
> Lebanon:  Independence - 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence - 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence - 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence - Midnight-14/15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  In 1924, Nationality and Citizenship of both the indigenous and immigrant populations were covered in Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Mandate.  Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate Territory under international law, under the authority of the treaty and League of Nations.
> 
> 3)  The mission of the Mandatory was to develop the capacity in the population (indigenous and immigrant) to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and social and other institutions on a more secure footing in order to fit them to take their position as independent nations; - and - apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> 4)  In a Class "A" Mandate, an "external interference" would be anything influence injected into the administration of the territory other than that of the Mandatory having full administrative and legislative powers.
> 
> 5)  In 1924, The "right of self-determination" was whatever the Mandatory and League of Nations said the right was.  "The universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, (A/RES/49/148 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994).
> 
> 6)  Yes, the "external interference" of the Arab League to the Jewish right to self-determination is illegal.  It was, by their own admission, acts of foreign military
> intervention, aggression and occupation, to interfere with the Implementation by the Security Council _(actioned by the UNPC)_ of the final steps to independence of the Jewish People, and the suppression of their right to self-determination as afforded to them through resolution by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are grasping at straws.

What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't believe any link. Besides, what he is saying about the borders is common sense. Get a clue.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Look again.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, for heaven's sake!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*
> 
> All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1)  In 1924, the international borders in the region were, whatever the Allied Powers decided they would be.
> 
> Going chronologically:
> 
> Egypt:  Independence - 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)
> Lebanon:  Independence - 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence - 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence - 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence - Midnight-14/15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  In 1924, Nationality and Citizenship of both the indigenous and immigrant populations were covered in Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Mandate.  Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate Territory under international law, under the authority of the treaty and League of Nations.
> 
> 3)  The mission of the Mandatory was to develop the capacity in the population (indigenous and immigrant) to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and social and other institutions on a more secure footing in order to fit them to take their position as independent nations; - and - apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> 4)  In a Class "A" Mandate, an "external interference" would be anything influence injected into the administration of the territory other than that of the Mandatory having full administrative and legislative powers.
> 
> 5)  In 1924, The "right of self-determination" was whatever the Mandatory and League of Nations said the right was.  "The universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, (A/RES/49/148 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994).
> 
> 6)  Yes, the "external interference" of the Arab League to the Jewish right to self-determination is illegal.  It was, by their own admission, acts of foreign military
> intervention, aggression and occupation, to interfere with the Implementation by the Security Council _(actioned by the UNPC)_ of the final steps to independence of the Jewish People, and the suppression of their right to self-determination as afforded to them through resolution by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There are no straws here.  It addresses each of the five unsupported issues you raise.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Look again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, for heaven's sake!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1)  In 1924, the international borders in the region were, whatever the Allied Powers decided they would be.
> 
> Going chronologically:
> 
> Egypt:  Independence - 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)
> Lebanon:  Independence - 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence - 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence - 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence - Midnight-14/15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  In 1924, Nationality and Citizenship of both the indigenous and immigrant populations were covered in Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Mandate.  Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate Territory under international law, under the authority of the treaty and League of Nations.
> 
> 3)  The mission of the Mandatory was to develop the capacity in the population (indigenous and immigrant) to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and social and other institutions on a more secure footing in order to fit them to take their position as independent nations; - and - apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> 4)  In a Class "A" Mandate, an "external interference" would be anything influence injected into the administration of the territory other than that of the Mandatory having full administrative and legislative powers.
> 
> 5)  In 1924, The "right of self-determination" was whatever the Mandatory and League of Nations said the right was.  "The universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, (A/RES/49/148 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994).
> 
> 6)  Yes, the "external interference" of the Arab League to the Jewish right to self-determination is illegal.  It was, by their own admission, acts of foreign military
> intervention, aggression and occupation, to interfere with the Implementation by the Security Council _(actioned by the UNPC)_ of the final steps to independence of the Jewish People, and the suppression of their right to self-determination as afforded to them through resolution by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are no straws here.  It addresses each of the five unsupported issues you raise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Look again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are no straws here.  It addresses each of the five unsupported issues you raise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Look again.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are no straws here.  It addresses each of the five unsupported issues you raise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
Click to expand...


It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Look again.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are no straws here.  It addresses each of the five unsupported issues you raise.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's talk about what's happening in the here and now.  For instance, last week Britain, France, Italy, and Spain recalled their Israeli ambassadors to protest the settlements on the West Bank.  Was this action justified?  Netanyahu was furious and called the Europeans hypocrites.  I agree with that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, let's talk about what's happening in the here and now.  For instance, last week Britain, France, Italy, and Spain recalled their Israeli ambassadors to protest the settlements on the West Bank.  Was this action justified?  Netanyahu was furious and called the Europeans hypocrites.  I agree with that.
Click to expand...


It is a good start. The settlements are illegal. People should be in jail.

Ten years ago they would be too afraid to say anything. It is good to see that the world is changing.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's talk about what's happening in the here and now.  For instance, last week Britain, France, Italy, and Spain recalled their Israeli ambassadors to protest the settlements on the West Bank.  Was this action justified?  Netanyahu was furious and called the Europeans hypocrites.  I agree with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a good start. The settlements are illegal. People should be in jail.
> 
> Ten years ago they would be too afraid to say anything. It is good to see that the world is changing.
Click to expand...


The settlements are in disputed territory, not occupied territory.  And Netanyahu made the point that the Israelis are admonished but not the Palestinians.  That isn't fair.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get all your misinformation anyway?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you that question concerning the 1948 war and the events prior and following it. I still havent gotten a link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to know where I got my information?
> 
> UN documents
> International law, treaties
> Avalon Project, Yale
> Palestine Encyclopedia
> Israel, MFA
> Wikipedia
> 1948.org.uk
> Jewish Virtual Library
> Palestine Remembered
> Bennie Morris
> Ilan Pappe
> Etc.
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
Click to expand...


I simply asked for a link. All I'm getting is song and dance. You rarely back up your claims, and even when you do, you bring up a link that doesn't even come close to proving your statement


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, for heaven's sake!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*
> 
> All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1)  In 1924, the international borders in the region were, whatever the Allied Powers decided they would be.
> 
> Going chronologically:
> 
> Egypt:  Independence - 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)
> Lebanon:  Independence - 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence - 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence - 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence - Midnight-14/15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  In 1924, Nationality and Citizenship of both the indigenous and immigrant populations were covered in Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Mandate.  Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate Territory under international law, under the authority of the treaty and League of Nations.
> 
> 3)  The mission of the Mandatory was to develop the capacity in the population (indigenous and immigrant) to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and social and other institutions on a more secure footing in order to fit them to take their position as independent nations; - and - apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> 4)  In a Class "A" Mandate, an "external interference" would be anything influence injected into the administration of the territory other than that of the Mandatory having full administrative and legislative powers.
> 
> 5)  In 1924, The "right of self-determination" was whatever the Mandatory and League of Nations said the right was.  "The universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, (A/RES/49/148 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994).
> 
> 6)  Yes, the "external interference" of the Arab League to the Jewish right to self-determination is illegal.  It was, by their own admission, acts of foreign military
> intervention, aggression and occupation, to interfere with the Implementation by the Security Council _(actioned by the UNPC)_ of the final steps to independence of the Jewish People, and the suppression of their right to self-determination as afforded to them through resolution by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.
Click to expand...


HUH??? He just addressed every point in your post! And he backed it up with links. Where are your links from that post ???? 

Grasping at straws, blowing smoke, etc... These are the things you say when your argument has been dismantled.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.
Click to expand...


Stop deflecting. Why do you find it so hard to admit you are wrong in certain cases??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you that question concerning the 1948 war and the events prior and following it. I still havent gotten a link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to know where I got my information?
> 
> UN documents
> International law, treaties
> Avalon Project, Yale
> Palestine Encyclopedia
> Israel, MFA
> Wikipedia
> 1948.org.uk
> Jewish Virtual Library
> Palestine Remembered
> Bennie Morris
> Ilan Pappe
> Etc.
> 
> Is this what you wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I simply asked for a link. All I'm getting is song and dance. You rarely back up your claims, and even when you do, you bring up a link that doesn't even come close to proving your statement
Click to expand...


Then I don't know what you want.

Could you ask a specific question?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop deflecting. Why do you find it so hard to admit you are wrong in certain cases??
Click to expand...


Name one.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop deflecting. Why do you find it so hard to admit you are wrong in certain cases??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...


Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !

Then there's what Rocco just responded to you


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, for heaven's sake!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1)  In 1924, the international borders in the region were, whatever the Allied Powers decided they would be.
> 
> Going chronologically:
> 
> Egypt:  Independence - 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status; the revolution that began on 23 July 1952 led to a republic being declared on 18 June 1953 and all British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)
> Lebanon:  Independence - 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Syria:  Independence - 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
> Jordan:  Independence - 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> Israel:  Independence - Midnight-14/15 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  In 1924, Nationality and Citizenship of both the indigenous and immigrant populations were covered in Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Mandate.  Palestine was a Class "A" Mandate Territory under international law, under the authority of the treaty and League of Nations.
> 
> 3)  The mission of the Mandatory was to develop the capacity in the population (indigenous and immigrant) to govern themselves, and in establishing their economic systems and social and other institutions on a more secure footing in order to fit them to take their position as independent nations; - and - apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.
> 
> 4)  In a Class "A" Mandate, an "external interference" would be anything influence injected into the administration of the territory other than that of the Mandatory having full administrative and legislative powers.
> 
> 5)  In 1924, The "right of self-determination" was whatever the Mandatory and League of Nations said the right was.  "The universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, (A/RES/49/148 94th plenary meeting 23 December 1994).
> 
> 6)  Yes, the "external interference" of the Arab League to the Jewish right to self-determination is illegal.  It was, by their own admission, acts of foreign military
> intervention, aggression and occupation, to interfere with the Implementation by the Security Council _(actioned by the UNPC)_ of the final steps to independence of the Jewish People, and the suppression of their right to self-determination as afforded to them through resolution by the General Assembly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH??? He just addressed every point in your post! And he backed it up with links. Where are your links from that post ????
> 
> Grasping at straws, blowing smoke, etc... These are the things you say when your argument has been dismantled.
Click to expand...


OK. let's start at the top.



> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.



Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop deflecting. Why do you find it so hard to admit you are wrong in certain cases??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !
> 
> Then there's what Rocco just responded to you
Click to expand...


Oh G-d, I don't want to hear that borders claim for the thousandth time.  Do you Toastman?


----------



## toastman

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !
> 
> Then there's what Rocco just responded to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh G-d, I don't want to hear that borders claim for the thousandth time.  Do you Toastman?
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter, it's a lie and I've proved it to him many times with a credible link


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post? If you have an issue with anything I said, pull it out and prove it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH??? He just addressed every point in your post! And he backed it up with links. Where are your links from that post ????
> 
> Grasping at straws, blowing smoke, etc... These are the things you say when your argument has been dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. let's start at the top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
Click to expand...


He's addressed that point many many times, you just choose to ignore it.

Read his last post again, the one you claimed where he was grasping at straws


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop deflecting. Why do you find it so hard to admit you are wrong in certain cases??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !
> 
> Then there's what Rocco just responded to you
Click to expand...


We don't have the background established to prove that Israel does have borders.

Israel claims that it got Palestine's borders from Egypt and Jordan. I think there is a problem with legitimacy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH??? He just addressed every point in your post! And he backed it up with links. Where are your links from that post ????
> 
> Grasping at straws, blowing smoke, etc... These are the things you say when your argument has been dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. let's start at the top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's addressed that point many many times, you just choose to ignore it.
> 
> Read his last post again, the one you claimed where he was grasping at straws
Click to expand...


But you cannot tell me what part addressed this question. I asked where, not if it was. You did not answer my question.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.


*(COMMENT)*

I did not say that the Mandate created a Jewish State.  What I tried to convey in truncated form is:



			
				The 27 Paragraph in Part 2 - Mandate Charters said:
			
		

> The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Series of League of Nations Publications  VI.A. MANDATES  1945. VI.A. 1



I think we all know that the idea of a "Jewish State" was formally recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine "majority proposal" (Partition), which formed the basis for A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947.  Within Part II (Boundaries), Section "B" (The Jewish State) of the Resolution 181 (II) - Future government of Palestine - makes it an explicit UN recommendation; and publically announced as implemented (05/17/1948		PAL/169	Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release). 



P F Tinmore said:


> It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.


*(COMMENT)*

For the last 60 years, the State of Israel has implemented various security countermeasures to the implicit threats and demonstrated past record of criminal behaviors and acts of terrorism made by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) constituency and endorsed and supported by the Arab League.  

The countermeasures taken are not intended to deny the HoAP any human rights or self-determination; --- but to protect the State of Israel from the HoAP Jihadist and Fedayeen from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities, paramilitary activities, and conventional warfare operations  intended to be committed against Israel and other States or their citizens. 

Criminals (HoAP) that are quarantined and contained are under such control to protect the rights and liberty of those (Israel and others) the criminal threatens. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
Click to expand...





 I already have done but you chose to ignore the borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and claimed that they showed the borders of Palestine. Who negotiated the borders for Palestine when there was no legal representation of any nation of Palestine, who did Egypt Jordan Syria and Israel negotiate the borders with ?

 See un res 242 for the explanation as to why Palestine could not have any borders


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the mandate was not to, and did not, create a Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not say that the Mandate created a Jewish State.  What I tried to convey in truncated form is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 27 Paragraph in Part 2 - Mandate Charters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Series of League of Nations Publications  VI.A. MANDATES  1945. VI.A. 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know that the idea of a "Jewish State" was formally recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine "majority proposal" (Partition), which formed the basis for A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947.  Within Part II (Boundaries), Section "B" (The Jewish State) of the Resolution 181 (II) - Future government of Palestine - makes it an explicit UN recommendation; and publically announced as implemented (05/17/1948		PAL/169	Palestine question - Palestine Commission adjourns sine die - Press release).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the last 60 years, the State of Israel has implemented various security countermeasures to the implicit threats and demonstrated past record of criminal behaviors and acts of terrorism made by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) constituency and endorsed and supported by the Arab League.
> 
> The countermeasures taken are not intended to deny the HoAP any human rights or self-determination; --- but to protect the State of Israel from the HoAP Jihadist and Fedayeen from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities, paramilitary activities, and conventional warfare operations  intended to be committed against Israel and other States or their citizens.
> 
> Criminals that are quarantined and contained are under such control to protect the rights and liberty of those the criminal threatens.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> I did not say that the Mandate created a Jewish State.  What I tried to convey in truncated form is:



Then why all the smoke about the mandate when it did not create Israel?

And why all the smoke about the UN when it did not create Israel either.

I made 6 points and I can't find where you addressed/refuted any of them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have done but you chose to ignore the borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and claimed that they showed the borders of Palestine. Who negotiated the borders for Palestine when there was no legal representation of any nation of Palestine, who did Egypt Jordan Syria and Israel negotiate the borders with ?
> 
> See un res 242 for the explanation as to why Palestine could not have any borders
Click to expand...


Israel claims Palestine's borders without negotiating with the Palestinians.

Quote the passage of resolution 242 that confirms your claim.


----------



## RoccoR

PF Tinemore,  _et al,_

There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty.  There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.

The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> PF Tinemore,  _et al,_
> 
> There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty.  There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.

You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could they when there was no nation of Palestine, and the nations that took over were Britain and France. Even the passports for the residents of the British mandate for Palestine said they were British subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post something that proves otherwise.
Click to expand...




 From your link.


During this period Palestine was first placed under military rule and then under civil administration. From 9 December 1917 (when the province of Jerusalem was occupied by the British army as part of World War I in which Britain and Turkey were enemies) until the adoption of the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, the international legal status of the country remained undetermined. As a result, the nationality of Palestine inhabitants, like that of the inhabitants of other ex-Ottoman territories at the time, remained similarly undetermined


Britains occupation did not alter, in law, the international status of Palestine as an occupied Turkish territory. The allied powers meanwhile gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss a deal with Turkey and determine the future of Palestine (then including Trans-Jordan), along with Iraq and Syria (then including Lebanon). 


As the unilaterally declared mandate had no international legal effect, Palestine remained, at least nominally, an Ottoman territory. Britain itself accepted this international legal position


In addition to being Ottoman citizens on the basis of the international law of state succession, Palestines inhabitants continued at the same time to be Ottomans in accordance with the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law. The ongoing validity of the 1869 Law was part of the general application of Ottoman laws in Palestine. 

Such validity of Ottoman nationality at the time can be explained by the general rule in international law that occupation or conquest does not provide title to the occupying power over the occupied territory. 


Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be* gradually regarded as Palestinians*  ( take note this was not a legally binding change of nationality )

As occupying power, Britain had become responsible for the international relations of Palestine and for protecting its inhabitants abroad.44 Britain, as such, found itself compelled to take certain measures to regulate the inhabitants nationality. To this end, the government of Palestine, which was the authority established by Britain to administrate the country, issued provisional nationality certificates to Ottoman residents in Palestine; granted Palestinian passports and travel documents; extended diplomatic protection to those inhabitants residing and travelling abroad; and made a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners regarding the admission into Palestine as well as political and residence rights. Palestinian and Palestinian citizen terms were routinely employed.45


Shortly after replacing the military order by a civil administration, a preliminary system of Palestinian passports and travel documents was set up in August 1920 by the Palestine Passport Regulations
In order, apparently, to be applicable to all residents of the country (natives, migrants, stateless persons, refugees) the Passport Regulations employed the term inhabitant of Palestine rather than Palestinian citizen


Palestinian nationality existed despite the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation..

So no legally recognised Palestinian nationality, just a British one that granted protected Palestinians the same consular rights as say Indians and Jamaicans


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, we've heard all your feeble rejoinders at least a thousand times. Every argument you have ever had has been highlighted with sound, reasonable explanation and solid proof. How about leaving the 19th and 20th centuries, face the fact that the old edicts and proclamations are now historical fiction. Get it in gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's talk about what's happening in the here and now.  For instance, last week Britain, France, Italy, and Spain recalled their Israeli ambassadors to protest the settlements on the West Bank.  Was this action justified?  Netanyahu was furious and called the Europeans hypocrites.  I agree with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a good start. The settlements are illegal. People should be in jail.
> 
> Ten years ago they would be too afraid to say anything. It is good to see that the world is changing.
Click to expand...




 Since when has it been illegal for a Jew to build on land that he/she owns and hold title to. This is where you constantly fall flat on your face, as you decide that the laws on land ownership and right of return do not apply to the Jews.   This is anti semitic Jew hatred of the worst kind.   So if anyone should go to jail it is you and the rest of the NAZIS


----------



## RoccoR

PF Tinmore,  _et al,_

What are you talking about?  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinemore,  _et al,_
> 
> There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty.  There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.
> 
> You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I have never posted any information on a pre-1988 State of Palestine; let alone a map.

I may have posted regional maps and mandate maps, but no State Map.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the 21st century and Palestinian rights are still being violated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop deflecting. Why do you find it so hard to admit you are wrong in certain cases??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...




 Palestinian legally recognised nationallity


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !
> 
> Then there's what Rocco just responded to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have the background established to prove that Israel does have borders.
> 
> Israel claims that it got Palestine's borders from Egypt and Jordan. I think there is a problem with legitimacy.
Click to expand...


Again, it is not Israel who claims these borders. The borders were created through U.N treaties. Nowhere on those treaties does it say Israel claims them.
What you are saying is blowing smoke.

*A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995*


*The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.*

It doesn't get clearer than that.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinemore,  _et al,_
> 
> There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty.  There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.
> 
> You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.
Click to expand...


Huh? What are you saying ? Read his post again


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !
> 
> Then there's what Rocco just responded to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have the background established to prove that Israel does have borders.
> 
> Israel claims that it got Palestine's borders from Egypt and Jordan. I think there is a problem with legitimacy.
Click to expand...






 WRONG as Israel claims it has legally recognised borders with Egypt and Jordan through mutual agreement and lasting peace, it is just that the borders follow the partition plan borders closely. I posted a link and a map that showed these borders to be in existence


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. let's start at the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's addressed that point many many times, you just choose to ignore it.
> 
> Read his last post again, the one you claimed where he was grasping at straws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you cannot tell me what part addressed this question. I asked where, not if it was. You did not answer my question.
Click to expand...




 Try the opening lines, or cant you understand what they are saying


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could they when there was no nation of Palestine, and the nations that took over were Britain and France. Even the passports for the residents of the British mandate for Palestine said they were British subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post something that proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link.
> 
> 
> During this period Palestine was first placed under military rule and then under civil administration. From 9 December 1917 (when the province of Jerusalem was occupied by the British army as part of World War I in which Britain and Turkey were enemies) until the adoption of the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, the international legal status of the country remained undetermined. As a result, the nationality of Palestine inhabitants, like that of the inhabitants of other ex-Ottoman territories at the time, remained similarly undetermined
> 
> 
> Britains occupation did not alter, in law, the international status of Palestine as an occupied Turkish territory. The allied powers meanwhile gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss a deal with Turkey and determine the future of Palestine (then including Trans-Jordan), along with Iraq and Syria (then including Lebanon).
> 
> 
> As the unilaterally declared mandate had no international legal effect, Palestine remained, at least nominally, an Ottoman territory. Britain itself accepted this international legal position
> 
> 
> In addition to being Ottoman citizens on the basis of the international law of state succession, Palestines inhabitants continued at the same time to be Ottomans in accordance with the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law. The ongoing validity of the 1869 Law was part of the general application of Ottoman laws in Palestine.
> 
> Such validity of Ottoman nationality at the time can be explained by the general rule in international law that occupation or conquest does not provide title to the occupying power over the occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be* gradually regarded as Palestinians*  ( take note this was not a legally binding change of nationality )
> 
> As occupying power, Britain had become responsible for the international relations of Palestine and for protecting its inhabitants abroad.44 Britain, as such, found itself compelled to take certain measures to regulate the inhabitants nationality. To this end, the government of Palestine, which was the authority established by Britain to administrate the country, issued provisional nationality certificates to Ottoman residents in Palestine; granted Palestinian passports and travel documents; extended diplomatic protection to those inhabitants residing and travelling abroad; and made a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners regarding the admission into Palestine as well as political and residence rights. Palestinian and Palestinian citizen terms were routinely employed.45
> 
> 
> Shortly after replacing the military order by a civil administration, a preliminary system of Palestinian passports and travel documents was set up in August 1920 by the Palestine Passport Regulations
> In order, apparently, to be applicable to all residents of the country (natives, migrants, stateless persons, refugees) the Passport Regulations employed the term inhabitant of Palestine rather than Palestinian citizen
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality existed despite the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation..
> 
> So no legally recognised Palestinian nationality, just a British one that granted protected Palestinians the same consular rights as say Indians and Jamaicans
Click to expand...




> Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law,...



That is true for Palestine and all of the other countries in the region. As long as the Ottoman Empire still legally existed their nationality remained Ottoman.

However, when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist on August 6, 1922 their de facto nationality status became de jure.



> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have done but you chose to ignore the borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and claimed that they showed the borders of Palestine. Who negotiated the borders for Palestine when there was no legal representation of any nation of Palestine, who did Egypt Jordan Syria and Israel negotiate the borders with ?
> 
> See un res 242 for the explanation as to why Palestine could not have any borders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel claims Palestine's borders without negotiating with the Palestinians.
> 
> Quote the passage of resolution 242 that confirms your claim.
Click to expand...





 Read it and find on instance of Palestine being mentioned, that is why it cant have any borders as it was a non-entity


----------



## RoccoR

PF Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK, let's try this again, in another way.



P F Tinmore said:


> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.


*(COMMENT)*

What is out of order?



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.


*(COMMENT)*

As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.



P F Tinmore said:


> When the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end on August 6, 1924 those became the *recognized international borders of Palestine.*


*(COMMENT)*

There were no "recognized borders" for Palestine.  There were recognized boundaries for the Mandates.



P F Tinmore said:


> All of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders *at that time* became Palestinian nationals with Palestinian citizenship.


*(COMMENT)*

Again nationalization and citizenship laws were established through the Administration of the Mandate in effect since 1922, not 1924.



P F Tinmore said:


> As a nation of people inside a defined territory they had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.


*(COMMENT)*

Any party outside the League of Nations (UN as the successor), and the Mandatory was an "external interference."



P F Tinmore said:


> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.


*(COMMENT)*

The "right of self-determination" was truncated by Article 22 of the Covenant.



P F Tinmore said:


> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.


*(COMMENT)*

That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinemore,  _et al,_
> 
> There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that addressed in Rocco's post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty.  There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.
> 
> You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.
Click to expand...





 NO YOU HAVE NOT all you have shown is the International borders of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. They are not the borders of Palestine as Palestine is a non-entity


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinemore,  _et al,_
> 
> There was no Palestine (State of) until December 1988.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I provided the international boundaries pertaining to the Mandates, as each country achieved independence and sovereignty.  There was no such State of Palestine, and I cannot provide you the proof of something that does not exist.
> 
> The State of Palestine was created (November 1988).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.
> 
> You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have never posted any information on a pre-1988 State of Palestine; let alone a map.
> 
> I may have posted regional maps and mandate maps, but no State Map.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I didn't say you. I said me.

Mandates have no land or borders. How can they have maps?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post something that proves otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link.
> 
> 
> During this period Palestine was first placed under military rule and then under civil administration. From 9 December 1917 (when the province of Jerusalem was occupied by the British army as part of World War I in which Britain and Turkey were enemies) until the adoption of the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, the international legal status of the country remained undetermined. As a result, the nationality of Palestine inhabitants, like that of the inhabitants of other ex-Ottoman territories at the time, remained similarly undetermined
> 
> 
> Britains occupation did not alter, in law, the international status of Palestine as an occupied Turkish territory. The allied powers meanwhile gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss a deal with Turkey and determine the future of Palestine (then including Trans-Jordan), along with Iraq and Syria (then including Lebanon).
> 
> 
> As the unilaterally declared mandate had no international legal effect, Palestine remained, at least nominally, an Ottoman territory. Britain itself accepted this international legal position
> 
> 
> In addition to being Ottoman citizens on the basis of the international law of state succession, Palestines inhabitants continued at the same time to be Ottomans in accordance with the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law. The ongoing validity of the 1869 Law was part of the general application of Ottoman laws in Palestine.
> 
> Such validity of Ottoman nationality at the time can be explained by the general rule in international law that occupation or conquest does not provide title to the occupying power over the occupied territory.
> 
> 
> Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be* gradually regarded as Palestinians*  ( take note this was not a legally binding change of nationality )
> 
> As occupying power, Britain had become responsible for the international relations of Palestine and for protecting its inhabitants abroad.44 Britain, as such, found itself compelled to take certain measures to regulate the inhabitants nationality. To this end, the government of Palestine, which was the authority established by Britain to administrate the country, issued provisional nationality certificates to Ottoman residents in Palestine; granted Palestinian passports and travel documents; extended diplomatic protection to those inhabitants residing and travelling abroad; and made a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners regarding the admission into Palestine as well as political and residence rights. Palestinian and Palestinian citizen terms were routinely employed.45
> 
> 
> Shortly after replacing the military order by a civil administration, a preliminary system of Palestinian passports and travel documents was set up in August 1920 by the Palestine Passport Regulations
> In order, apparently, to be applicable to all residents of the country (natives, migrants, stateless persons, refugees) the Passport Regulations employed the term inhabitant of Palestine rather than Palestinian citizen
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality existed despite the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation..
> 
> So no legally recognised Palestinian nationality, just a British one that granted protected Palestinians the same consular rights as say Indians and Jamaicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true for Palestine and all of the other countries in the region. As long as the Ottoman Empire still legally existed their nationality remained Ottoman.
> 
> However, when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist on August 6, 1922 their de facto nationality status became de jure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Read it again as it states that  Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law  this was right up until they declared the state of Palestine in 1988.
 By turning down the right to International acceptance in 1917  they lost the rights under International Law to nationality.


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, let's try this again, in another way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is out of order?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were no "recognized borders" for Palestine.  There were recognized boundaries for the Mandates.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again nationalization and citizenship laws were established through the Administration of the Mandate in effect since 1922, not 1924.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Any party outside the League of Nations (UN as the successor), and the Mandatory was an "external interference."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right of self-determination" was truncated by Article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Thanks for this post Rocco. It cleared up a couple of issues for me as well.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What is the issue?  Are you trying to establish that the Hostile Arab Palestinians had some other history?



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have done but you chose to ignore the borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and claimed that they showed the borders of Palestine. Who negotiated the borders for Palestine when there was no legal representation of any nation of Palestine, who did Egypt Jordan Syria and Israel negotiate the borders with ?
> 
> See un res 242 for the explanation as to why Palestine could not have any borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel claims Palestine's borders without negotiating with the Palestinians.
> 
> Quote the passage of resolution 242 that confirms your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read it and find on instance of Palestine being mentioned, that is why it cant have any borders as it was a non-entity
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/242 was well after the fact, 22 November 1967.  Neither the State of Palestine, nor the Mandate of Palestine, is even mentioned once in the 1967 S/RES/242.  The embedded  Map does refer to the "former Mandate of Palestine."

What is your point?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I have already posted maps and documents showing Palestine's international borders.
> 
> You can't refute that with merely say so or a lot of smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have never posted any information on a pre-1988 State of Palestine; let alone a map.
> 
> I may have posted regional maps and mandate maps, but no State Map.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you. I said me.
> 
> Mandates have no land or borders. How can they have maps?
Click to expand...






 Think through what you have just posted and add the word Palestine in there and you may just have an epiphany

 Palestinian mandates have no land or borders, how can it have a map.    You are resorting to the mandate for your maps of the borders and then saying that the maps and borders are non existent.      Do both your feet hurt were you have just shot yourself.


----------



## Hossfly

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start off with your "Israel has no borders" claim LOL !
> 
> Then there's what Rocco just responded to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh G-d, I don't want to hear that borders claim for the thousandth time.  Do you Toastman?
Click to expand...

Oh, let him claim there are no borders. I print out his posts, show them to friends and they die laughing, well almost.


----------



## Ronin

Lipush said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought for their 'identity' for "65" years, while we fought for ours for 2000.
> *
> They have 22 states to find refugee in, we have none.*
> 
> Who do you think has more to lose? who will fight for their survival more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.
> 
> There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.
> 
> The right to exist as a people is something that was offered to them in 1948. But they chose to see it that this right means that WE cannot exist as a people.
> 
> They opened a war to "establish" this right for identity, which means the destruction of ours.
> 
> They have lost.
> 
> They don't have a state today simply because we insist on existing.
> 
> That is why we're hated. For existing.
> 
> If it's us existing or them, we chose us.
> 
> Once it stops being "or", a game they have started, they'll win justice.
> 
> But as long as they insist on destroying us, they'll live with sorrow.
> 
> It's very simple.
Click to expand...


Is this perspective taught or promoted in the Israeli educational system? 

There are Jews all over the world, but only one Jewish state.

There Are Arabs all over the world, with 22 states. And they don't feel it's enough, as they greed our own, as well.

Islam is at war with us  they are the ones who refuse to 'share' Jerusalem, and by their belief, their war with the Jews is eternal.

Im certainly not fan of Islam and have never had a desire to study the Koran.  It certainly seems to be an aggressive if not violent religion- as are all. 

Doesnt the Old Testament teach early on that Arabs are the ass of humanity?   
If you have the ability to step back and think about that for a moment is it not reasonable to assume the results are going to be negative? 

I was fortunate to visit Israel several times in the 90s and was able to see places that would be too dangerous now.  A question I always wanted to people I met from both sides but never did: How do you ignore the fact that both Jewish and Arabic people are descendants from the same blood?  Or is that incorrect?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, let's try this again, in another way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is out of order?
Click to expand...

Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.
Click to expand...

And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?



> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There were no "recognized borders" for Palestine.  There were recognized boundaries for the Mandates.


*Not true.*

After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.



> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again nationalization and citizenship laws were established through the Administration of the Mandate in effect since 1922, not 1924.


Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.

What is your point?



> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Any party outside the League of Nations (UN as the successor), and the Mandatory was an "external interference."


Link?



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The things you mentioned are products of exercising the right to self determination not prerequisites.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right of self-determination" was truncated by Article 22 of the Covenant.
Click to expand...

Could you quote the passage that says that?



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> External interference to the right to self determination is a crime under international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to confirm that statement?



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, let's try this again, in another way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is out of order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.
> 
> 
> And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Could you quote the passage that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to confirm that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




 Try again as what I listed were the attributes of statehood. Nations under the heel of another country still had leaders, currency, capital city, flag etc. They did not have any self determination but still had the trappings of statehood. Your Palestine has had none of these things over the last 2,000 years of so making it nothing but a place name on the maps.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, let's try this again, in another way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is irrelevant. You are getting the procedures out or order.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is out of order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.
> 
> 
> And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Could you quote the passage that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is correct! The interference of the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab League, was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to confirm that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?"

Just because you find it irrelevant, doesn't make it so. 


"After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."

Where did you read this? Link ???


"What is your point?"


What's yours???


----------



## RoccoR

PF Tinmore,  _et al,_

You whole argument rests on this single point.



toastman said:


> "After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."


*(COMMENT)*

While it is true that the Mandate for the UK Terminated and the UK left; the mandate did not terminate in its entirety.  As far as the Mandate Territory and population is concerned, the power and authority of the Mandate merely changed hands from the UK to the UNPC as the successor government.



			
				UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.	The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
> 
> 14.	The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
> 
> The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.
> 
> The Commission shall render periodic monthly progress reports, or more frequently if desirable, to the Security Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
Click to expand...


Nothing changed.  The Mandate, as an instrument of "occupied enemy territory administration," after the Military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

The borders, under the general guidance of the Allied Powers _(based on decision taken by the Allied Supreme Council at the San Remo conference)_, were arranged between the Government of the UK and France; and not the indigenous populations.

The phrase "external interference" is a nebulous.  The Hostile Arab Palestinian tends to hang on this phrase because it  suits their purpose.  BUT, in fact, the indigenous population was under "occupied enemy territory administration."  At No Time does the Allied Supreme Council, the League of Nations, or the Mandatory give the occupied enemy territory any administrative control over the government.  As you can see from the links above, the control rested with the UN and the Mandatory power _(the  UK or the UNPC)_.  Any other force or influence beyond them, was a"external interference." 

(Subliminal Question:  How can the hostile Arab population of occupied enemy territory be not be a adverse influence when they are attempting to seize power by force over the Allied administration of multiple mandates?)​
*(SUB-COMMENT)*

You generally make me supply all the links and references, and I don't mind.  I am use to being held to the higher standard, and peer review.  There was a time that people in my former line of work were sometimes encourage to openly talk about the policy and framework of the US and the logic behind it.  But in doing so, I find it confusing that when I provide the links, I'm accused of "Blowing Smoke" and when I don't provide the links, I am challenged on that basis.  I do fin it annoying when you ask to provide a link on a "negative" (that which cannot be proved); but then, maybe I am not exactly sure where you get your boundary information from, but the boundaries established by the Allied Powers alter over time to fit political decisions.  The northern boundaries that separate the unincorporated occupied enemy territories of the indigenous Arab (the Sykes-Picot Boundary) were codified by the FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR STRIA AND THE LEBANON, PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA Signed at Paris, December 28, 1920, after the decisions made by the Supreme Allied Council in San Remo of the same year.  The first three articles of the convention outline the boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The idea you express here is 100% wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.



First:  The Mandate (that is the Mandatory) did not "leave" Palestine in the sense you suggest.  The Mandatory powers merely changes from the UK to the UNPC (ie the Security Council).

Second:  As I've demonstrated, and you can read for yourself in the FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION of 1920, the borders are intricately tied to the Mandates.  



			
				FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION of 1920 said:
			
		

> Article 1
> 
> The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and the Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine on the other are determined as follows:  ....
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_  122 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
> FRANCO-BRITISH CONVENTION ON CERTAIN POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE MANDATES FOR STRIA AND THE LEBANON, PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, let's try this again, in another way.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is out of order?
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.
> 
> 
> And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Could you quote the passage that says that?
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to confirm that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?"
> 
> Just because you find it irrelevant, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

I said: "Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties." Which is true.

Rocco said: "As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory." Which is also true.

Then I said: "And then they were, making your post irrelevant."

Shortly thereafter Palestine's international borders were defined. So, what was the purpose of his post?



> "After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."
> 
> Where did you read this? Link ???


The 1949 UN armistice agreements (the year following the end of the mandate) called Palestine Palestine many times. They referenced Palestine's international borders for determining the placement of armistice lines.

I can post links if you like.



> "What is your point?"
> 
> 
> What's yours???


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall listed some results of exercising the right to self determination to imply that the Palestinians had no rights without first going into the history of why these things were lacking. Going back you can see that it is not that the Palestinians did not have rights but that their rights were violated by illegal external interference.
> 
> 
> And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?
> 
> 
> *Not true.*
> 
> After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate.
> 
> 
> Palestinian nationality and citizenship were established through proper channels.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Could you quote the passage that says that?
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to confirm that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?"
> 
> Just because you find it irrelevant, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said: "Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties." Which is true.
> 
> Rocco said: "As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory." Which is also true.
> 
> Then I said: "And then they were, making your post irrelevant."
> 
> Shortly thereafter Palestine's international borders were defined. So, what was the purpose of his post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "After the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there. Its borders were still there. Palestine and its borders existed separate from the mandate."
> 
> Where did you read this? Link ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements (the year following the end of the mandate) called Palestine Palestine many times. They referenced Palestine's international borders for determining the placement of armistice lines.
> 
> I can post links if you like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is your point?"
> 
> 
> What's yours???
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I would like a link that proves that after the Mandate left, that Palestine's borders were still there.

Are you saying those borders are still there NOW ?? What are these borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> While it is true that the Mandate for the UK Terminated and the UK left; the mandate did not terminate in its entirety. As far as the Mandate Territory and population is concerned, the power and authority of the Mandate merely changed hands from the UK to the UNPC as the successor government.



I know they had some meetings and filed some reports, but *did they ever do anything?*

Did they ever leave Palestine? If so, what were the terms of their disengagement?

You also stated:



> Nothing changed. The Mandate, as an instrument of "occupied enemy territory administration," after the Military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.



Then isn't the UNPC obligated under international law to protect the rights and welfare of the Palestinian citizens?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And then they were, making your post irrelevant. So why did you post it? Are you just blowing smoke on the issue?"
> 
> Just because you find it irrelevant, doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> I said: "Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties." Which is true.
> 
> Rocco said: "As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory." Which is also true.
> 
> Then I said: "And then they were, making your post irrelevant."
> 
> Shortly thereafter Palestine's international borders were defined. So, what was the purpose of his post?
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements (the year following the end of the mandate) called Palestine Palestine many times. They referenced Palestine's international borders for determining the placement of armistice lines.
> 
> I can post links if you like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is your point?"
> 
> 
> What's yours???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like a link that proves that after the Mandate left, that Palestine's borders were still there.
> 
> Are you saying those borders are still there NOW ?? What are these borders?
Click to expand...


The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

The borders of Palestine and Israel is a final status issue in the current peace negotiations.

I know of no previous agreements.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said: "Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties." Which is true.
> 
> Rocco said: "As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory." Which is also true.
> 
> Then I said: "And then they were, making your post irrelevant."
> 
> Shortly thereafter Palestine's international borders were defined. So, what was the purpose of his post?
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements (the year following the end of the mandate) called Palestine Palestine many times. They referenced Palestine's international borders for determining the placement of armistice lines.
> 
> I can post links if you like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a link that proves that after the Mandate left, that Palestine's borders were still there.
> 
> Are you saying those borders are still there NOW ?? What are these borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
> 
> The borders of Palestine and Israel is a final status issue in the current peace negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no previous agreements.
Click to expand...



Firstly, you didn't answer my question. Second, Israel already has internationally recognized permanent borders with Egypt and Jordan. There is absolutely no dispute over them


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a link that proves that after the Mandate left, that Palestine's borders were still there.
> 
> Are you saying those borders are still there NOW ?? What are these borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
> 
> The borders of Palestine and Israel is a final status issue in the current peace negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no previous agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, you didn't answer my question. Second, Israel already has internationally recognized permanent borders with Egypt and Jordan. There is absolutely no dispute over them
Click to expand...


I did.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
> 
> The borders of Palestine and Israel is a final status issue in the current peace negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no previous agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, you didn't answer my question. Second, Israel already has internationally recognized permanent borders with Egypt and Jordan. There is absolutely no dispute over them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.
Click to expand...


Read my question again


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Yes, good questions.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that the Mandate for the UK Terminated and the UK left; the mandate did not terminate in its entirety. As far as the Mandate Territory and population is concerned, the power and authority of the Mandate merely changed hands from the UK to the UNPC as the successor government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they had some meetings and filed some reports, but *did they ever do anything?*
> 
> Did they ever leave Palestine? If so, what were the terms of their disengagement?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

While the original Mandatory (UK), came to the Middle East in full battle regalia, the UNPC did not.  Under the terms of the organization and implementation process, the UNPC was to organize and insure that each party accepting the Steps Preparatory to Independence recruited an armed militia from the indigenous residents.  The declaration of independence by the Jewish State (mid-might 14-15 May 1948) marked the completion of those steps (the Jewish Agency being the only entity accepting).  The immediate invasion of the Arab League forces (15 May) interrupted the UNPC (a UN Security Council Arm) from further work withdrew on 17-18 May in favor of the UN Armistice Commission (a UN Security Council Arm), as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.



P F Tinmore said:


> You also stated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changed. The Mandate, as an instrument of "occupied enemy territory administration," after the Military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then isn't the UNPC obligated under international law to protect the rights and welfare of the Palestinian citizens?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence.  The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that the Mandate for the UK Terminated and the UK left; the mandate did not terminate in its entirety. As far as the Mandate Territory and population is concerned, the power and authority of the Mandate merely changed hands from the UK to the UNPC as the successor government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they had some meetings and filed some reports, but *did they ever do anything?*
> 
> *Did they have to under International Law, or could they just say this is how it will be.*
> 
> Did they ever leave Palestine? If so, what were the terms of their disengagement?
> 
> *Eventually, did they need any terms of disengagement under International Law or could they just say this is how it will be*
> You also stated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changed. The Mandate, as an instrument of "occupied enemy territory administration," after the Military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then isn't the UNPC obligated under international law to protect the rights and welfare of the Palestinian citizens?
Click to expand...



Which Palestinian citizens, the ones that had lived and worked the land for 2,500 years or the ones that came looking for work in the latter end of the 19c. The second lot had no homes in Palestine being itinerant casual farm workers who moved about and lived in tents. The land owners were mostly Jews who bought up any spare land they could once the laws changed to allow Jews to own land. Many muslim farmers saw a means of getting a thriving farm and the money to run it for the rest of their lifetime so sold the land to the Jews. They waited for the farm to become productive again and then ethnically cleansed  the Jews from the farms, usually by just murdering them.

So what rights did the Jews of Palestine have in your version of events, as opposed to the rights of Islamic land thieves who had been there for less than a generation. Were was International Law to protect the Jews who were valid Palestinian citizens by right of land ownership.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said: "Palestine's borders were defined by international, post war treaties." Which is true.
> 
> Rocco said: "As to be determined by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory." Which is also true.
> 
> Then I said: "And then they were, making your post irrelevant."
> 
> Shortly thereafter Palestine's international borders were defined. So, what was the purpose of his post?
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements (the year following the end of the mandate) called Palestine Palestine many times. They referenced Palestine's international borders for determining the placement of armistice lines.
> 
> I can post links if you like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a link that proves that after the Mandate left, that Palestine's borders were still there.
> 
> Are you saying those borders are still there NOW ?? What are these borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
> 
> The borders of Palestine and Israel is a final status issue in the current peace negotiations.
> 
> I know of no previous agreements.
Click to expand...




 The borders of Palestine are still to be set, read un res 242 and you see that they are not mentioned at all. What you are referring to above are ceasefire lines and not international borders. What you have referred to in other posts are International borders of countries outside of Palestine that delineate the PROPOSED borders that are yet to be agreed. Israel has complied with the details set out in UN res 242 by agreeing international borders with Egypt and Jordan, handing back control of land occupied during the 6 day war. Both nations then stated that they did not want the land of gaza or the west bank and that Israel could keep it. In effect handing the land to Israel on a plate. Now under International Law this means that Israel owns that land and could evict all the muslims if they so wished. But they decided to offer the Palestinian muslims a deal that would give them a nation and self determination, guess what the muslims turned it down


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall,  _et al,_

Maybe, and maybe not.  The Oslo Accords (Article I) do make it a clear that the aim of the negotiations then and now are "leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)." But the Oslo Accords (Article V) also make it clear that "Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest," are in the Permanent status negotiations.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a link that proves that after the Mandate left, that Palestine's borders were still there.
> 
> Are you saying those borders are still there NOW ?? What are these borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
> 
> The borders of Palestine and Israel is a final status issue in the current peace negotiations.
> 
> I know of no previous agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The borders of Palestine are still to be set, read un res 242 and you see that they are not mentioned at all. What you are referring to above are ceasefire lines and not international borders. What you have referred to in other posts are International borders of countries outside of Palestine that delineate the PROPOSED borders that are yet to be agreed. Israel has complied with the details set out in UN res 242 by agreeing international borders with Egypt and Jordan, handing back control of land occupied during the 6 day war. Both nations then stated that they did not want the land of gaza or the west bank and that Israel could keep it. In effect handing the land to Israel on a plate. Now under International Law this means that Israel owns that land and could evict all the muslims if they so wished. But they decided to offer the Palestinian muslims a deal that would give them a nation and self determination, guess what the muslims turned it down
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

PF Tinmore is correct, in addition to the borders set by the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt, there are still the 1949 Armistice Lines.





Having said that, there are permanent international boundaries recognized between Egypt (Article III - Item 3 of the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979) and Jordan (Article 2 - Item 2 and Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994) as annotated on the map provided.

Armistice Lines can last forever.  There is no limitation to them under international law.  And there is no exception for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is such a thing as a "Coerced Treaty;" _(Page 32, Studies in International Law - linked)_  where freely given consent is not required.  However, at the present time, no one seems to think this is a viable solution for the present.   Since the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) _(distinctively different from the Government of Palestine)_ do not subscribe to the Rule of Law governing the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, it is unlikely that forced arbitration would secure a nonviolent outcome.  Why do I mention this, because there are HoAP elements, within the Governing body of Palestine, that believe that Israel is a illegitimate government and that all the former Mandate of Palestine belongs to the State of Palestine.  

Relative to the Armistice Lines, there is such a thing called the Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders: Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950 (1) in which they pledged to take action to prevent violations of the armistice lines. 

At the current time, there is no substantive reason to believe that any current negotiated path will result in a favorable permanent settlement between the parties in dispute or settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

RoccoR said:


> "..._At the current time, there is no substantive reason to believe that any current negotiated path will result in a favorable permanent settlement between the parties in dispute or settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter_..."


Sadly, this appears to be true.

Leaving the principals (and other interested stakeholders) with several options:

1. do nothing, hoping that the current state of affairs can hold

2. wait for a while then try again, re-cycling old parameters

3. break the logjam (_with or without any particular regard for the Charter_)


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, good questions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that the Mandate for the UK Terminated and the UK left; the mandate did not terminate in its entirety. As far as the Mandate Territory and population is concerned, the power and authority of the Mandate merely changed hands from the UK to the UNPC as the successor government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they had some meetings and filed some reports, but *did they ever do anything?*
> 
> Did they ever leave Palestine? If so, what were the terms of their disengagement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the original Mandatory (UK), came to the Middle East in full battle regalia, the UNPC did not.  Under the terms of the organization and implementation process, the UNPC was to organize and insure that each party accepting the Steps Preparatory to Independence recruited an armed militia from the indigenous residents.  The declaration of independence by the Jewish State (mid-might 14-15 May 1948) marked the completion of those steps (the Jewish Agency being the only entity accepting).  The immediate invasion of the Arab League forces (15 May) interrupted the UNPC (a UN Security Council Arm) from further work withdrew on 17-18 May in favor of the UN Armistice Commission (a UN Security Council Arm), as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also stated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changed. The Mandate, as an instrument of "occupied enemy territory administration," after the Military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then isn't the UNPC obligated under international law to protect the rights and welfare of the Palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence.  The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Do you have links to back up your post. I see some clunkers in there that do not make sense.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Yes, all of this has been linked in the last couple of days.  You've seen it all.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, good questions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they had some meetings and filed some reports, but *did they ever do anything?*
> 
> Did they ever leave Palestine? If so, what were the terms of their disengagement?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the original Mandatory (UK), came to the Middle East in full battle regalia, the UNPC did not.  Under the terms of the organization and implementation process, the UNPC was to organize and insure that each party accepting the Steps Preparatory to Independence recruited an armed militia from the indigenous residents.  The declaration of independence by the Jewish State (mid-might 14-15 May 1948) marked the completion of those steps (the Jewish Agency being the only entity accepting).  The immediate invasion of the Arab League forces (15 May) interrupted the UNPC (a UN Security Council Arm) from further work withdrew on 17-18 May in favor of the UN Armistice Commission (a UN Security Council Arm), as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also stated:
> 
> 
> 
> Then isn't the UNPC obligated under international law to protect the rights and welfare of the Palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence.  The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have links to back up your post. I see some clunkers in there that do not make sense.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

What particular "clunkers" don't make sense?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, all of this has been linked in the last couple of days.  You've seen it all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, good questions.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the original Mandatory (UK), came to the Middle East in full battle regalia, the UNPC did not.  Under the terms of the organization and implementation process, the UNPC was to organize and insure that each party accepting the Steps Preparatory to Independence recruited an armed militia from the indigenous residents.  The declaration of independence by the Jewish State (mid-might 14-15 May 1948) marked the completion of those steps (the Jewish Agency being the only entity accepting).  The immediate invasion of the Arab League forces (15 May) interrupted the UNPC (a UN Security Council Arm) from further work withdrew on 17-18 May in favor of the UN Armistice Commission (a UN Security Council Arm), as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence.  The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have links to back up your post. I see some clunkers in there that do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What particular "clunkers" don't make sense?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> ...as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.



Who said that and what does it mean?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, all of this has been linked in the last couple of days.  You've seen it all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, good questions.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the original Mandatory (UK), came to the Middle East in full battle regalia, the UNPC did not.  Under the terms of the organization and implementation process, the UNPC was to organize and insure that each party accepting the Steps Preparatory to Independence recruited an armed militia from the indigenous residents.  The declaration of independence by the Jewish State (mid-might 14-15 May 1948) marked the completion of those steps (the Jewish Agency being the only entity accepting).  The immediate invasion of the Arab League forces (15 May) interrupted the UNPC (a UN Security Council Arm) from further work withdrew on 17-18 May in favor of the UN Armistice Commission (a UN Security Council Arm), as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence.  The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have links to back up your post. I see some clunkers in there that do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What particular "clunkers" don't make sense?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence. The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.



What role did the UNPC play in the creation of Israel? What procedures laid down in resolution 181 did they follow? What land was allocated for Israel?

Do you have some documentation on what had transpired?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, good questions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know they had some meetings and filed some reports, but *did they ever do anything?*
> 
> Did they ever leave Palestine? If so, what were the terms of their disengagement?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the original Mandatory (UK), came to the Middle East in full battle regalia, the UNPC did not.  Under the terms of the organization and implementation process, the UNPC was to organize and insure that each party accepting the Steps Preparatory to Independence recruited an armed militia from the indigenous residents.  The declaration of independence by the Jewish State (mid-might 14-15 May 1948) marked the completion of those steps (the Jewish Agency being the only entity accepting).  The immediate invasion of the Arab League forces (15 May) interrupted the UNPC (a UN Security Council Arm) from further work withdrew on 17-18 May in favor of the UN Armistice Commission (a UN Security Council Arm), as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also stated:
> 
> 
> 
> Then isn't the UNPC obligated under international law to protect the rights and welfare of the Palestinian citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence.  The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have links to back up your post. I see some clunkers in there that do not make sense.
Click to expand...


Tinmore asking others to post links to back up their statements; Now THAT'S funny  

I'm sure he's posted links for all his statements, you just choose to ignore them or pretend he didn't post it. And even when he does post a link to back up his statement, you STILL try to challenge him. 

You should be thankful that he even bothers responding to you. Rocco obviously spends time on his posts by making sure he is very clear about his points, and always backs up the statements that require links.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Yes, these are my words, and not a direct quote:



P F Tinmore said:


> ...as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that and what does it mean?
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				UN Document - History - Page 9 & 10 - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations said:
			
		

> On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, *the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan*. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.
> 
> The fighting was halted after several weeks, under a four-week truce called for by the Security Council on 29 May 1948. The truce went into effect on 11 June and was supervised by the United Nations Mediator with the assistance of a group of international military observers, which came to be known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Despite the efforts of the Mediator, no agreement could be reached on an extension of the truce, and fighting broke out again on 8 July.
> 
> On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. *By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City).* More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Question of Palestine and the United Nations



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, all of this has been linked in the last couple of days.  You've seen it all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have links to back up your post. I see some clunkers in there that do not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What particular "clunkers" don't make sense?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence. The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What role did the UNPC play in the creation of Israel? What procedures laid down in resolution 181 did they follow? What land was allocated for Israel?
> 
> Do you have some documentation on what had transpired?
Click to expand...


Stop deflecting


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

That is a very tall order, but I'll try.



P F Tinmore said:


> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence. The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What role did the UNPC play in the creation of Israel? What procedures laid down in resolution 181 did they follow? What land was allocated for Israel?
> 
> Do you have some documentation on what had transpired?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT & REFERENCES)*

The Record:  There are 76 Agenda and 76 Summaries or 152 records in all.

E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/Agenda/

F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION
A/AC.21/SR./​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> That is a very tall order, but I'll try.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Paragraph 8 of the resolution, the UNPC was to insure that each State (Jewish and Arab) had a armed militia to assist in the maintenance of security during the implementation of their independence. The external interference of the Armed Attack by the Arab League Armies interrupted that process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What role did the UNPC play in the creation of Israel? What procedures laid down in resolution 181 did they follow? What land was allocated for Israel?
> 
> Do you have some documentation on what had transpired?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT & REFERENCES)*
> 
> The Record:  There are 76 Agenda and 76 Summaries or 152 records in all.
> 
> E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/Agenda/
> 
> F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION
> A/AC.21/SR./​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Of course that does not answer my questions.

You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*



> On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, *the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities* and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf



So your post was based on false premise.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> That is a very tall order, but I'll try.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What role did the UNPC play in the creation of Israel? What procedures laid down in resolution 181 did they follow? What land was allocated for Israel?
> 
> Do you have some documentation on what had transpired?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT & REFERENCES)*
> 
> The Record:  There are 76 Agenda and 76 Summaries or 152 records in all.
> 
> E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/Agenda/
> 
> F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION
> A/AC.21/SR./​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, *the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities* and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
Click to expand...


How does that prove that the Mandate was NOT handed to the UNPC ???


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, these are my words, and not a direct quote:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as the conflict caused the Resolution 181(II) boundaries to devolve under the pressure of armed conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that and what does it mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN Document - History - Page 9 & 10 - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, *the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan*. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.
> 
> The fighting was halted after several weeks, under a four-week truce called for by the Security Council on 29 May 1948. The truce went into effect on 11 June and was supervised by the United Nations Mediator with the assistance of a group of international military observers, which came to be known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Despite the efforts of the Mediator, no agreement could be reached on an extension of the truce, and fighting broke out again on 8 July.
> 
> On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. *By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City).* More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Question of Palestine and the United Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> On the same day, *the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan*. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities.



That is *not true.*

Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence.

Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, these are my words, and not a direct quote:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that and what does it mean?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the same day, *the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan*. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *not true.*
> 
> Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.
Click to expand...


Where's your link to prove that lie??

Are you saying Israel didn't declare independence ?

"Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence."

WTF does this lie have to do with what he said ????????? 

The next time I tell you that you never provide links for your claims and you ask me specifically what claims...well, now you know why


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, these are my words, and not a direct quote:
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the same day, *the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan*. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *not true.*
> 
> Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your link to prove that lie??
> 
> Are you saying Israel didn't declare independence ?
> 
> "Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence."
> 
> WTF does this lie have to do with what he said ?????????
> 
> The next time I tell you that you never provide links for your claims and you ask me specifically what claims...well, now you know why
Click to expand...


Take Jaffa, for example. Jaffa was designated to be part of the Arab state. Israel had jaffa under military control before they claimed independence.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> That is a very tall order, but I'll try.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT & REFERENCES)*
> 
> The Record:  There are 76 Agenda and 76 Summaries or 152 records in all.
> 
> E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION A/AC.21/Agenda/
> 
> F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION
> A/AC.21/SR./​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, *the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities* and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that prove that the Mandate was NOT handed to the UNPC ???
Click to expand...





 He is obfuscating because he has not read the links provided, he want the links posting in their entirety so that he can cherrypick the bits he wants. He cant string a timeline together and see that when Britain relinquished the mandate the UN took up the mantle and passed it on to an arm of the UN that oversaw the process. When the process broke down as it did then the UN empowered another arm to take over, and then later still yet another arm. BUT they were all just arms of the UN who had full control, something he cant think through. he thinks that the UN is a different body to the UNPC when the UNPC is subservient to the UN. It is akin to a corporate structure with a CEO at the top and his appointed officers cascading down underneath, they all still work for the same company.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Yes, these are my words, and not a direct quote:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that and what does it mean?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the same day, *the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan*. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *not true.*
> 
> Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.
Click to expand...





Evidence and proof from an unbiased and trustworthy source is required to back up your allegations of ethnic cleansing and disregard for 181.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is *not true.*
> 
> Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence.
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link to prove that lie??
> 
> Are you saying Israel didn't declare independence ?
> 
> "Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence."
> 
> WTF does this lie have to do with what he said ?????????
> 
> The next time I tell you that you never provide links for your claims and you ask me specifically what claims...well, now you know why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take Jaffa, for example. Jaffa was designated to be part of the Arab state. Israel had jaffa under military control before they claimed independence.
Click to expand...





 A map from wiki is not proof or evidence of your allegations, so put up or shut up


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your link to prove that lie??
> 
> Are you saying Israel didn't declare independence ?
> 
> "Israel had already cleansed Palestinians from there homes in areas designated to be part of the Arab state and Jerusalem before they declared independence."
> 
> WTF does this lie have to do with what he said ?????????
> 
> The next time I tell you that you never provide links for your claims and you ask me specifically what claims...well, now you know why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take Jaffa, for example. Jaffa was designated to be part of the Arab state. Israel had jaffa under military control before they claimed independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A map from wiki is not proof or evidence of your allegations, so put up or shut up
Click to expand...




> In 1947, the UN Special Commission on Palestine recommended that Jaffa be included in the planned Jewish state. Due to the large Arab majority, however, it was instead designated as *part of the Arab state* in the 1947 UN Partition Plan.[24]
> 
> Jaffa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> At 4 A.M. on April 25, 1948, almost three weeks before the termination of the British mandate over Palestine, Jaffa was subjected to an intensifying barrage of concentrated mortar bombing from Tel Aviv, Bat Yam and Agro-Bank. I twice risked my life and that of my family by attempting to escape in my car with my pregnant wife and 2-year-old daughter. Halfway out of the city, I had to turn back and return to the center of town.
> 
> In the afternoon a group of us called the district commissioner to ask if the British administration had decided to abandon the city. The district commissioner denied that, and at his request the Army dispatched three tanks at about 5 P.M., which rolled through the main streets of Jaffa. However, panic was so intense and irreversible that almost 90 percent of Jaffa's population of 80,000 escaped in the next 24 hours.
> 
> The Panic That Gripped Jaffa in April 1948 - NYTimes.com



Don't grump at me. You are the one who doesn't know anything about this conflict.

BTW, check out Palestine's international boundaries on that map.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take Jaffa, for example. Jaffa was designated to be part of the Arab state. Israel had jaffa under military control before they claimed independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A map from wiki is not proof or evidence of your allegations, so put up or shut up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1947, the UN Special Commission on Palestine recommended that Jaffa be included in the planned Jewish state. Due to the large Arab majority, however, it was instead designated as *part of the Arab state* in the 1947 UN Partition Plan.[24]
> 
> Jaffa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 4 A.M. on April 25, 1948, almost three weeks before the termination of the British mandate over Palestine, Jaffa was subjected to an intensifying barrage of concentrated mortar bombing from Tel Aviv, Bat Yam and Agro-Bank. I twice risked my life and that of my family by attempting to escape in my car with my pregnant wife and 2-year-old daughter. Halfway out of the city, I had to turn back and return to the center of town.
> 
> In the afternoon a group of us called the district commissioner to ask if the British administration had decided to abandon the city. The district commissioner denied that, and at his request the Army dispatched three tanks at about 5 P.M., which rolled through the main streets of Jaffa. However, panic was so intense and irreversible that almost 90 percent of Jaffa's population of 80,000 escaped in the next 24 hours.
> 
> The Panic That Gripped Jaffa in April 1948 - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't grump at me. You are the one who doesn't know anything about this conflict.
> 
> BTW, check out Palestine's international boundaries on that map.
Click to expand...





I cant see any International borders of Palestine on that map, no legend saying this lines in this colour are the legally recognised international borders of Palestine. What I see is the 1947 partition plan that is based on demographics and not common sense and the international borders of Egypt, trans Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

 Still waiting for a map that states these are the international borders of the sovereign nation of Palestine, as opposed to the area known as Palestine that has no defined borders.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.

You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, *the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities* and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).

First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.



			
				Part I said:
			
		

> 2.	The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947



In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.



			
				SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE PALESTINE COMMISSION said:
			
		

> The Mandate of the Commission was, therefore, firm and clear. The Commission was to take all necessary measures leading to the establishment in Palestine, not later than 1 October 1948, of an independent Arab State and an independent Jewish State.
> 
> The General Assembly Resolution under which the Commission was to act promised the full authority of the United Nations in the discharge of the responsibilities.
> 
> The Commission was entitled to be confident that in the event it should prove necessary, the Security Council would assume its full measure of responsibility in the implementation of the Assemblys resolution. The Commission had the right to assume, as he assumed, that in such a situation the Security Council would not fail to exercise, to the fullest and without exception, every necessary power entrusted to it by the Charter in order to assist the Commission in fulfilling its mission.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/SR.1  9 January 1948



After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).



			
				UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> "After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> *SOURCE:* PAL/138 27 February 1948



Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.

With regard to the claim that:



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.



I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel 



> STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, *the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities* and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 37)


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, *the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities* and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission.
> 
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized the resolution 181 proposed borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I know what the UNPC was supposed to do, but that was not my question.

What *did* it do?


----------



## toastman

Timmore, it is 2014 and Jaffa is inside the green line. I inderstand what you're saying, but in the end it changes nothing. You can thank the hostility of the Arabs and Palestinian Arabs.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

It did the transition for the Jewish Agency of Food Programs, Banking and Postal Systems, Consular - Immigration - Passport and Border Systems, Monetary and Economic systems, and all the other necessary coordination to move the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State to an Permanent Government.  That is what the 76 different reports cover that I linked to you. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the UNPC was supposed to do, but that was not my question.
> 
> What *did* it do?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

But most importantly, the Commission documented the external interference of the Arab League in the fulfillment of it Mandate.

I don't know what you expect me to say in a few short paragraphs here, that covers all the various facets of the Implementation process of the Commission and the various hurdles and challenges they faced.  You have to read the reports yourself. 

If you have a specific question, I might be able to address it.  But it is unreasonable to expect me to condense six months work over the Steps Preparatory to Independence of Israel on this forum beyond what I linked to you and which you ultimately call everything documented a "lie."

For me to be able to answer, you must be specific beyond asking for the entire summation of the events and the associated coordination or events that occurred.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> It did the transition for the Jewish Agency of Food Programs, Banking and Postal Systems, Consular - Immigration - Passport and Border Systems, Monetary and Economic systems, and all the other necessary coordination to move the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State to an Permanent Government.  That is what the 76 different reports cover that I linked to you.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the UNPC was supposed to do, but that was not my question.
> 
> What *did* it do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But most importantly, the Commission documented the external interference of the Arab League in the fulfillment of it Mandate.
> 
> I don't know what you expect me to say in a few short paragraphs here, that covers all the various facets of the Implementation process of the Commission and the various hurdles and challenges they faced.  You have to read the reports yourself.
> 
> If you have a specific question, I might be able to address it.  But it is unreasonable to expect me to condense six months work over the Steps Preparatory to Independence of Israel on this forum beyond what I linked to you and which you ultimately call everything documented a "lie."
> 
> For me to be able to answer, you must be specific beyond asking for the entire summation of the events and the associated coordination or events that occurred.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Well, one question is about the transfer of land to Israel.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> Timmore, it is 2014 and Jaffa is inside the green line. I inderstand what you're saying, but in the end it changes nothing. You can thank the hostility of the Arabs and Palestinian Arabs.



Jaffa was where the Prophet Jonah sailed out from.  Every inch of Israel is filled with Jewish history.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I don't think I necessarily agree with this.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 37)
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Just as there are various Arab Palestinian factions that have diverse opinions, so it is with the Jewish Community within Israel.

David Ben-Gurion did not accept the total strategy of the Partition Plan; that is obvious.  But as a higher level official, he new he had to sacrifice much of what he personally believed to achieve the first steps towards attaining a Jewish National Home through the process of statehood.  And so he had to compromise.  But, conversely, he totally understood what Isa Nakhleh (Representative of the Arab Higher Committee) was saying in his 6 February 1948 Letter to the Secretary-General; which implied that if Israel were to become independent and sovereign THEN --->:



			
				Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh said:
			
		

> In its *statement to the Ad Hoc Committee on the 29th of September*, our Delegation left no doubt on the Arab reactions: &#8220;The Arabs of Palestine are, therefore, solidly determined to oppose, with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provides for the dissection, segregation or partition of their tiny Country, or that gives to a minority, on the ground of creed, special and preferential rights or status. They will oppose such schemes, with the same zeal and with the same sacrifice that any other people would do under the same circumstances. We are alive to the fact that if they so desire, big powers could crush, by brute force, such opposition. But this realisation will not deter us from drenching the soil of our beloved country *with the last drop of our blood* in the lawful defense of all and every inch of it.&#8221;
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948



It is important to note that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were the ones that conveyed the idea of "use of force" and "all means necessary" to David Ben-Gurion even before the Resolution 181(II) was passed (September 1947); not the other way around.  David Ben-Gurion, YES, clearly understood that the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution" because that is what the HoAP told him and the Secretary-General.  The HoAP were going to start a fight.  _(And they did just that!  Not just once, but several times and they haven't stopped yet.)_

Ilan Pappé's book is true to an extent, but holds a pro-Palestinian _(anti-Israel Government)_ flavor that most of us who have been to college know and recognize.  I encourage everyone to read it, but with a grain of salt.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions.
> 
> You stated that the mandate was handed to the UNPC. According to your link* that is not true.*
> 
> 
> 
> So your post was based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 37)
Click to expand...





 And which side has repeatedly tried to wrest control of all the land, starting in 1948 when it was soundly beaten by a rag tag army of farmers and shopkeepers.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> It did the transition for the Jewish Agency of Food Programs, Banking and Postal Systems, Consular - Immigration - Passport and Border Systems, Monetary and Economic systems, and all the other necessary coordination to move the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State to an Permanent Government.  That is what the 76 different reports cover that I linked to you.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the UNPC was supposed to do, but that was not my question.
> 
> What *did* it do?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But most importantly, the Commission documented the external interference of the Arab League in the fulfillment of it Mandate.
> 
> I don't know what you expect me to say in a few short paragraphs here, that covers all the various facets of the Implementation process of the Commission and the various hurdles and challenges they faced.  You have to read the reports yourself.
> 
> If you have a specific question, I might be able to address it.  But it is unreasonable to expect me to condense six months work over the Steps Preparatory to Independence of Israel on this forum beyond what I linked to you and which you ultimately call everything documented a "lie."
> 
> For me to be able to answer, you must be specific beyond asking for the entire summation of the events and the associated coordination or events that occurred.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, one question is about the transfer of land to Israel.
Click to expand...



 Don't forget it also dealt with the transfer of land to muslims, land that in reality they had no rights to.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think I necessarily agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Let me try this again, now that I have your specific objection.
> 
> You are having a problem with the timeline and the mission.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pertaining to the Mandate Authority hand-off (Successor Government of Palestine).
> 
> First, as part of the Plan, the UN envisioned a gradual hand-off from the Mandatory (UK), to the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> In January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission is fully assembled with its authority and mandate.
> 
> After all the turf battles and political end-fighting, in February 1948 the Mandatory (UK) announces the successor government as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).
> 
> Concerning the April 17 decision:  The "Truce Commission" had its mission mandate, which was not entirely the same as that of the Palestine Commission.  Don't confuse the two.  One was to establish peace after the outbreak of hostilities, the other is to establish a Arab and Jewish State.
> 
> With regard to the claim that:
> 
> I've never seen anything to support that.  I have seen evidence to the exact opposite.  One needs only read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 37)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as there are various Arab Palestinian factions that have diverse opinions, so it is with the Jewish Community within Israel.
> 
> David Ben-Gurion did not accept the total strategy of the Partition Plan; that is obvious.  But as a higher level official, he new he had to sacrifice much of what he personally believed to achieve the first steps towards attaining a Jewish National Home through the process of statehood.  And so he had to compromise.  But, conversely, he totally understood what Isa Nakhleh (Representative of the Arab Higher Committee) was saying in his 6 February 1948 Letter to the Secretary-General; which implied that if Israel were to become independent and sovereign THEN --->:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In its *statement to the Ad Hoc Committee on the 29th of September*, our Delegation left no doubt on the Arab reactions: The Arabs of Palestine are, therefore, solidly determined to oppose, with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provides for the dissection, segregation or partition of their tiny Country, or that gives to a minority, on the ground of creed, special and preferential rights or status. They will oppose such schemes, with the same zeal and with the same sacrifice that any other people would do under the same circumstances. We are alive to the fact that if they so desire, big powers could crush, by brute force, such opposition. But this realisation will not deter us from drenching the soil of our beloved country *with the last drop of our blood* in the lawful defense of all and every inch of it.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is important to note that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were the ones that conveyed the idea of "use of force" and "all means necessary" to David Ben-Gurion even before the Resolution 181(II) was passed (September 1947); not the other way around.  David Ben-Gurion, YES, clearly understood that the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution" because that is what the HoAP told him and the Secretary-General.  The HoAP were going to start a fight.  _(And they did just that!  Not just once, but several times and they haven't stopped yet.)_
> 
> Ilan Pappé's book is true to an extent, but holds a pro-Palestinian _(anti-Israel Government)_ flavor that most of us who have been to college know and recognize.  I encourage everyone to read it, but with a grain of salt.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.

It sounds like you are trying to sell something.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.


Why self-defence and why isn't it hostile, if palistanians never lost anything?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh no, I'm not selling anything.  I'm making a distinction.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.


*(COMMENT)*

I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States _(non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians)_, and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens _(hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen)_.

Nothing can justify terrorism &#8212; ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.  

The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law.  When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_. 

I make a distinction.  I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile."  I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, I'm not selling anything.  I'm making a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States _(non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians)_, and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens _(hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen)_.
> 
> Nothing can justify terrorism  ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
> 
> The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law.  When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> I make a distinction.  I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile."  I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens



The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, I'm not selling anything.  I'm making a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States _(non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians)_, and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens _(hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen)_.
> 
> Nothing can justify terrorism  ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
> 
> The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law.  When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> I make a distinction.  I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile."  I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."



The armistice lines like in Gaza, for example, are lines that Israeli and Egyptian forces cannot cross. These lines run through Palestine and there are Palestinians on both sides. I don't see how Palestinians can violate these lines.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.


How so, if palistanians don't have no land and no borders?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think I necessarily agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 37)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as there are various Arab Palestinian factions that have diverse opinions, so it is with the Jewish Community within Israel.
> 
> David Ben-Gurion did not accept the total strategy of the Partition Plan; that is obvious.  But as a higher level official, he new he had to sacrifice much of what he personally believed to achieve the first steps towards attaining a Jewish National Home through the process of statehood.  And so he had to compromise.  But, conversely, he totally understood what Isa Nakhleh (Representative of the Arab Higher Committee) was saying in his 6 February 1948 Letter to the Secretary-General; which implied that if Israel were to become independent and sovereign THEN --->:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In its *statement to the Ad Hoc Committee on the 29th of September*, our Delegation left no doubt on the Arab reactions: The Arabs of Palestine are, therefore, solidly determined to oppose, with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provides for the dissection, segregation or partition of their tiny Country, or that gives to a minority, on the ground of creed, special and preferential rights or status. They will oppose such schemes, with the same zeal and with the same sacrifice that any other people would do under the same circumstances. We are alive to the fact that if they so desire, big powers could crush, by brute force, such opposition. But this realisation will not deter us from drenching the soil of our beloved country *with the last drop of our blood* in the lawful defense of all and every inch of it.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/10  16 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is important to note that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were the ones that conveyed the idea of "use of force" and "all means necessary" to David Ben-Gurion even before the Resolution 181(II) was passed (September 1947); not the other way around.  David Ben-Gurion, YES, clearly understood that the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution" because that is what the HoAP told him and the Secretary-General.  The HoAP were going to start a fight.  _(And they did just that!  Not just once, but several times and they haven't stopped yet.)_
> 
> Ilan Pappé's book is true to an extent, but holds a pro-Palestinian _(anti-Israel Government)_ flavor that most of us who have been to college know and recognize.  I encourage everyone to read it, but with a grain of salt.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
Click to expand...




 Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves. 

 Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Nonsense!  That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.



P F Tinmore said:


> including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."

Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known.  You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.  This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948. 

When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> Why self-defence and why isn't it hostile, if palistanians never lost anything?
Click to expand...




 IT IS A LIE BY TINMORE TO TWIST THE WORDS ROUND TO HIS RACIST POV   the term used is HoAP    Hostile Arab Palestinian    no mention of self defence in the post at all.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think I necessarily agree with this.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as there are various Arab Palestinian factions that have diverse opinions, so it is with the Jewish Community within Israel.
> 
> David Ben-Gurion did not accept the total strategy of the Partition Plan; that is obvious.  But as a higher level official, he new he had to sacrifice much of what he personally believed to achieve the first steps towards attaining a Jewish National Home through the process of statehood.  And so he had to compromise.  But, conversely, he totally understood what Isa Nakhleh (Representative of the Arab Higher Committee) was saying in his 6 February 1948 Letter to the Secretary-General; which implied that if Israel were to become independent and sovereign THEN --->:
> 
> 
> 
> It is important to note that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were the ones that conveyed the idea of "use of force" and "all means necessary" to David Ben-Gurion even before the Resolution 181(II) was passed (September 1947); not the other way around.  David Ben-Gurion, YES, clearly understood that the new Jewish state, "will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution" because that is what the HoAP told him and the Secretary-General.  The HoAP were going to start a fight.  _(And they did just that!  Not just once, but several times and they haven't stopped yet.)_
> 
> Ilan Pappé's book is true to an extent, but holds a pro-Palestinian _(anti-Israel Government)_ flavor that most of us who have been to college know and recognize.  I encourage everyone to read it, but with a grain of salt.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.
> 
> Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists
Click to expand...




> They refused the offer of a nation...



No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, I'm not selling anything.  I'm making a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States _(non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians)_, and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens _(hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen)_.
> 
> Nothing can justify terrorism  ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
> 
> The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law.  When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> I make a distinction.  I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile."  I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.
Click to expand...






 MUNICH OLYMPICS, JORDAN, LEBANON, SYRIA, EGYPT all places were HoAP have committed terrorism. All outside of your imaginary borders.

 WHY DO YOU LIE


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense!  That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known.  You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.  This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation



Israel does not recognize armistice lines as borders and crosses them at will.

Why should the Palestinians have to live by a different standard?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Nonsense!  That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known.  You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.  This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means



What peaceful means would you suggest?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, I'm not selling anything.  I'm making a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I recognize there is a difference between a Palestinian that adopts the fundamentals in the Rule of Law and the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States _(non-hostile or just Arab Palestinians)_, and those that organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, intended to be committed against other States or their citizens _(hostile or Jihadist and Fedayeen)_.
> 
> Nothing can justify terrorism  ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
> 
> The Palestinian people are subjected to the conditions they are, because of their past practices of criminal behaviors and their insistence that they are somehow special; beyond the law.  When a Palestinian believes that they (somehow) have the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests, as well as, innocent civilians --- or are somehow entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, they have defined themselves to be "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts the principle that they are open to engage in the use of threats, coercion, or force to secure their own territorial integrity or political independence in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages, in good faith, with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> I make a distinction.  I neither say all are "hostile" or all are "non-hostile."  I apply the descriptor that fits the character and integrity of the people I am describing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines like in Gaza, for example, are lines that Israeli and Egyptian forces cannot cross. These lines run through Palestine and there are Palestinians on both sides. I don't see how Palestinians can violate these lines.
Click to expand...





 Then you should be seeing a psychologist and get treated for stupidity.   The lines apply to everyone that lives in the area, and this means all Palestinians. Now here is the rub the Jews are Palestinians as well, or don't you know that. They meet the criteria that you and the HoAP set for the arab muslims. All they need to do is accept a just peace and they will find they are one of the richest nations on the planet, but while they engage in terrorism they will be reviled and hated by all decent human beings.


 The lines separate the HoAP from the rest of society and the SOVERIEGN NATION OF ISRAEL they apply to the HoAP just as much as they do to the Israelis and they are in breach of International Law if they transgress the lines. When they do they face a return of fire and the defenders can then cross the line to mete out punishment to the terrorists.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.
> 
> Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They refused the offer of a nation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
			
		

> The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN *REFUSAL RECOGNIZE* UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948



I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you constantly call Palestinian self defense hostile.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to sell something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.
> 
> Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They refused the offer of a nation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
Click to expand...




 They said it is writing to the U.N. that they would never agree to the partition plan and that they would destroy Israel and force the Jews back into the sea. So the Jews did the only thing they could and they declared themselves a nation. Only 22 states voted against them being accepted as a Soveriegn nation recognised by the U.N. This in itself over rules your fantasy of Palestine being this massive nation in the M.E with international borders in Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon, and poor Jordan is no longer there.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.
> 
> Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN *REFUSAL RECOGNIZE* UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION



They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There are a number of different ways.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  That is a "hostile" policy statement in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not cross borders. They stay within their own.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and engages in the use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect, then they have defined themselves as "hostile."
> 
> Your concept on the topic of "borders" is well known.  You espouse that somehow Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit; and that it is ALL the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.  This is essentially the same argument used by the Arab Higher Committee to justify Jihadist genocide against the Jewish People in 1948.
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, then they have defined themselves as "Non-hostile" _(or just Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinian adopts policies and processes to settle their international disputes by peaceful means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What peaceful means would you suggest?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Oddly enough, the Palestinians could ask the UN to bring the UN Palestine Commission out of adjournment.   It actually has the power to adjust borders dating back to 1948, pursuant to implementation; and it just so happens that the State of Palestine invoked the resolution in its Declaration of Independence.  Oh , yeah - I forgot.  The HoAP doesn't recognized Resolution 181(II) or anything derived there from.

Or, there is this process called "Settlement of Disputes" where the United Nations requires all Members of the Organization to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

Or, Treaty Negotiations, and/or Arbitration through the ICJ which decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

Or the process set-out by UN Resolution A/RES/34/102 -- Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States.

(And there are more!)

There are any number of ways to settle disputes by peaceful means.  But again, there must be an element of good faith.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
Click to expand...





 SAME THING as they did not hold title to the land, but Britain did


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
Click to expand...





 By what right did they usurp the right of self determination of the jewish people living in the M.E . By what right did they usurp the right to a homeland for the Jewish people living in the M.E. By what right did they usurp the right to defensible borders of the Jewish homeland in the M.E.

 Or are you that much of a JEW HATER that you want to see the Jews wiped out completely.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again with the subterfuge.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city.  It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors.  They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.  



			
				Excerpt Paragraph F of Introduction to UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION TO THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY said:
			
		

> *More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly.* To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that *powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly* and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> *The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine*; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/532  10 April 1948



There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly."  We call them HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again with the subterfuge.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city.  It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors.  They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Paragraph F of Introduction to UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION TO THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly.* To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that *powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly* and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> *The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine*; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/532  10 April 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly."  We call them HoAP.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

All of the hostilities and aggression were from the outside.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again with the subterfuge.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city.  It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors.  They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Paragraph F of Introduction to UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION TO THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly.* To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that *powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly* and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> *The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine*; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/532  10 April 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly."  We call them HoAP.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of the hostilities and aggression were from the outside.
> 
> A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948
Click to expand...


Your constant denial and inability to understand simple issues is mind boggling.
For someone who talks about the I/P conflict as much as you,you know very little.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
Click to expand...


They rejection the partition of a territory that they had no sovereignty over. Had they accepted the partition, they would have had a state. Very simple concept, and one that is really not up for debate


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yeah, that is certainly a predictable position for pro-Palestinians to take.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the subterfuge.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.
> 
> The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city.  It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors.  They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Paragraph F of Introduction to UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION TO THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly.* To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that *powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly* and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> *The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine*; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/532  10 April 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly."  We call them HoAP.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of the hostilities and aggression were from the outside.
> 
> A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

As it was still under Mandate (UK) and the very early transition to the UNPC, your citation is not only an example of threats, coercion, intimidation, and the promise of genocide, it comes from the Arab Higher Committee reconstituted by the Arab League (foreign interference to the UN and the Mandatory).

Yes, you are right, it was (mostly) external to the Mandatory having jurisdiction over the region.  It was originating from the Arab and signed by the Arabs as "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history;" as to the violence they would initiated (and subsequently did).

*Please Note:* 
A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948 was signed by:  Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC).
Peaceful political brinksmanship noted in this report is not a threat, a form of coercion, or the promise violence as amplified by the AHC.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Rocco, according to Tinmore, Palestinians have not engaged in any hostilities. Everything they have done is in self defense. That includes bot intifads, btw


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> Rocco, according to Tinmore, Palestinians have not engaged in any hostilities. Everything they have done is in self defense. That includes bot intifads, btw



And even hijackings like Entebbe that happened outside the country, or pushing a wheelchair-bound man off a ship and into the water to drown.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.
> 
> Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN *REFUSAL RECOGNIZE* UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.



P F Tinmore said:


> If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.


*(COMMENT)*

America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.



P F Tinmore said:


> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.


*(COMMENT)*

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at the past history of behaviors.
> 
> I take a reasonable man view.
> 
> Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.
> 
> The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.
> 
> I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Attacks are attacks. The excuses don't matter.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at the past history of behaviors.
> 
> I take a reasonable man view.
> 
> Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.
> 
> The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.
> 
> I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it? 

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at the past history of behaviors.
> 
> I take a reasonable man view.
> 
> Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.
> 
> The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.
> 
> I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
Click to expand...


Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.  
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at the past history of behaviors.
> 
> I take a reasonable man view.
> 
> Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.
> 
> The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.
> 
> I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.
Click to expand...


I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.


----------



## toastman

There will never be a two state solution. What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?

Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are. 

Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Well, you have most of it wrong.



pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> There will never be a two state solution. What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?
> 
> Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.
> 
> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best



Toast, you're being short-sighted...Think a hundred or even two hundred years...Israel's neighbors will be modernized Politically and militarily...The Palestinians are the least problem for Israel...Its Al Qaida which is growing not diminishing.

Already the Europeans are clamoring for a two state solution to the 67 borders to force the original ideas of the Mandate...


Only Peace and trade with her neighbors can save the Israeli State in the long-run. And I bet if the question is put to the Israeli electorate they will accept the 67 borders for a real sustainable peace...

If the peace is broken after it is established, all Israel's critics will support her right to defend her-self.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, you have most of it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.
> 
> That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Defending your country is a Noble thing. Creating a Nation from someone else's indigenous homelands is not... 

Period.


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

I need not apologize for any party associated with the conflict; in whatever the capacity.



toastman said:


> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm held to a higher standard and cannot engage in arguments against the person, only the position they hold given reason.

In the last week, the principle argument has been:

The hostility of the Palestinian (Jihadist and Fedayeen) and the logic behind their past criminal behavior and asymmetric activity.

The territorial disputes and the validity/legality in the establishment of the Jewish State; and the impact of various UN activities in the implementation of the Partition Plan.

And the attempts by various parties in the disruption of the implementation process.

Obviously, the position I've taken is that there is no justification for some of the lawlessness exhibited by the virtual victim, and the hostile posture they have taken.  And obviously I have consistently advocated for the adoption of peaceful means and approaches to the resolution of the conflict.  My adversaries have encouraged another path.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> I need not apologize for any party associated with the conflict; in whatever the capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm held to a higher standard and cannot engage in arguments against the person, only the position they hold given reason.
> 
> In the last week, the principle argument has been:
> 
> The hostility of the Palestinian (Jihadist and Fedayeen) and the logic behind their past criminal behavior and asymmetric activity.
> 
> The territorial disputes and the validity/legality in the establishment of the Jewish State; and the impact of various UN activities in the implementation of the Partition Plan.
> 
> And the attempts by various parties in the disruption of the implementation process.
> 
> Obviously, the position I've taken is that there is no justification for some of the lawlessness exhibited by the virtual victim, and the hostile posture they have taken.  And obviously I have consistently advocated for the adoption of peaceful means and approaches to the resolution of the conflict.  My adversaries have encouraged another path.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco, no one is questioning your integrity, but look at the phrases and adjective you use...Terrorism by people fighting a war is very common...The French Resistance comes to mind, Kosovo, and many other places...Criminal behavior? In an active conflict? Has the UN charged them?

Its your position of Justice which lacks balance to me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, you have most of it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes* under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.
> 
> That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.

The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.

Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.

Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

There is a mistake here.

I did not justify or take a stand on the decisions made by the Allied Powers, or the League of Nations/UN.  That is, I have not discussed whether the decision was virtuous, sound or valid.

In fact, I have consistently said that neither side has clean hands, and that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate claims.



pbel said:


> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.


*(COMMENT)*

What I have consistently argued against is:

The method and approach the Hostile Arab Palestinian and Arab League have adopted as a means of settlement.

The asymmetric tactics, terrorism, threats, coercion and open conventional conflict launched against, the various parties to the conflict.

The legal position that the Arab Palestinian exercised some measure of sovereignty over the territory in question and that they were deprived of their right to self-determination.

There is a a grave difference between the cultures, the one from which I hail and those of the Arab Middle East.  There is, imbedded in this dispute, a moral imperative and responsibility to preserve cultural heritage of each society in distress; including that of the Jewish People.  I do not expect the Arab Palestinian, of the Islamic Persuasion, to even feel the slightest obligation to render help and assistance in that preservation effort.  I suspect that the Allied Powers at San Remo had a similar impression of the Arab Palestinian.

I do not think there is anything to be gained by expanding the exchange as to why, or why not, the Arab Palestinian has the morality is has.  It is sufficient for me to know that the Arab Palestinian, as a society within the species, is sufficiently different and in opposition to the cause of preservation of a culture in distress; beyond the ability to take the lead in such an effort.  Humanity has seen the lack of sense in cultural preservation before in similar Islamic dominated regions.   This type of effort requires a much higher order of developmental thinking.  

It is now being address on a different plane - a lower order of reactive autonomic response; a position of that adopted by the Palestinian Black Hand in the late 1920s (antagonistic and confrontational).  We need not look back and ask why.  We need only look at today - and to ask - what can be done to restore peace and preserve the culture?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There is a mistake here.
> 
> I did not justify or take a stand on the decisions made by the Allied Powers, or the League of Nations/UN.  That is, I have not discussed whether the decision was virtuous, sound or valid.
> 
> In fact, I have consistently said that neither side has clean hands, and that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate claims.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What I have consistently argued against is:
> 
> The method and approach the Hostile Arab Palestinian and Arab League have adopted as a means of settlement.
> 
> The asymmetric tactics, terrorism, threats, coercion and open conventional conflict launched against, the various parties to the conflict.
> 
> The legal position that the Arab Palestinian exercised some measure of sovereignty over the territory in question and that they were deprived of their right to self-determination.
> 
> There is a a grave difference between the cultures, the one from which I hail and those of the Arab Middle East.  There is, imbedded in this dispute, a moral imperative and responsibility to preserve cultural heritage of each society in distress; including that of the Jewish People.  I do not expect the Arab Palestinian, of the Islamic Persuasion, to even feel the slightest obligation to render help and assistance in that preservation effort.  I suspect that the Allied Powers at San Remo had a similar impression of the Arab Palestinian.
> I do not think there is anything to be gained by expanding the exchange as to why, or why not, the Arab Palestinian has the morality is has.  It is sufficient for me to know that the Arab Palestinian, as a society within the species, is sufficiently different and in opposition to the cause of preservation of a culture in distress; beyond the ability to take the lead in such an effort.  Humanity has seen the lack of sense in cultural preservation before in similar Islamic dominated regions.   This type of effort requires a much higher order of developmental thinking.
> 
> It is now being address on a different plane - a lower order of reactive autonomic response; a position of that adopted by the Palestinian Black Hand in the late 1920s (antagonistic and confrontational).  We need not look back and ask why.  We need only look at today - and to ask - what can be done to restore peace and preserve the culture?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Precisely the problem the Colonial chauvinism of the Europeans over the native Culture and its perceived inferiority as it is today...The real truth is that Arab Culture has long and distinguished roots which is the political glue that binds them...The Radical expression is the growing Jihadist movement. The Arab Spring is a result.

Its Israel's move land or peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.

Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.

Why don't we just run with that?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, you have most of it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes* under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.
> 
> That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.
> 
> The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.
> 
> Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.
> 
> Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.
Click to expand...


There was no country for the Zionists to take over

The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?



Why dont you tell us point by point how that wod work out.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you tell us point by point how that wod work out.
Click to expand...

I can't WAIT to hear THIS...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, you have most of it wrong.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes* under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.
> 
> That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.
> 
> The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.
> 
> Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.
> 
> Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There was no country for the Zionists to take over*
> 
> The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?
Click to expand...


Now all you have to do is convince millions of Palestinians that Palestine is not their country.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> There will never be a two state solution.


Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.




toastman said:


> What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?


What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?



toastman said:


> Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.


Because that's what Israel wants. 




toastman said:


> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best


You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh yeah --- Right.



P F Tinmore said:


> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?


*(COMMENT)*

Great Logic:  Just let the Palestinian Human Rights Attorney & Professor decide!  What are you crazy?  They believe that terrorism is justifiable because they believe their cause is just.  (Circular Logic)

The problem is that the destruction or devolution of the State of Israel, is very likely to start a cascade series of counterproductive events that nobody wants; except Arab Palestinians prone to suicidal outcomes.

There will be many that would agree that it is better to maintain the _status quo_ then to set the conditions for the mutual destruction of the parties concerned, and allow the rise of another fanatical Islamic State in the middle of the Levant Gas Field.  _(Of course we don't expect the Palestinians to care about that.)_  There is a very high probability that the destruction or devolution of the State of Israel will be the catalyst that unleashes an uncontrollable series of events that will destabilize the entire region before the nation expires.​
However, there are very few analyst, at this time, that see such events, of this magnitude, even being a possibility in the near future.  After all, the events that brought the State of Israel (The Jewish State) to realization were formulated by the International Community; and the ground conditions set by adversarial by the Arab States in political confrontation with the International Community.  

There is always the chance for a peaceful solution, based on mutual sacrifice and compromise; but, only if there is a good faith effort put forth.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, you have most of it wrong.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes* under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.
> 
> That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.
> 
> The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.
> 
> Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.
> 
> Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no country for the Zionists to take over
> 
> The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?
Click to expand...


You have got to be kidding...Just because there was no Nation called Palestine the people who lived in Palestine since 2-3 thousand years have been genetically proven to be the people who call themselves Palestinians today.

The Ottomans and Brits exercised an Occupier's Sovereignty by Arms...They had no deeds to the land...

This no country bit is one of the most insidious lies in this conflict. No one with half a brain buys into this convoluted logic!


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> Precisely the problem the Colonial chauvinism of the Europeans over the native Culture and its perceived inferiority as it is today...The real truth is that Arab Culture has long and distinguished roots which is the political glue that binds them...The Radical expression is the growing Jihadist movement. The Arab Spring is a result. Its Israel's move land or peace.


Indeed, Bassem Tibbi wouldn't have said that otherwise - "The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other."


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict. Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law. Why don't we just run with that?


Because the arab version of it states "What's mine - is mine, and what's yours is mine too.", of course.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I'm not sure you are entirely correct _(without the use of subterfuge)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN *REFUSAL RECOGNIZE* UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document.   A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.
Click to expand...





 Were was the U.N in 1812 to set in stone International Law that should have brought a halt to MASS MURDER.     That is the difference but you are too steeped in your Jew hatred to understand this.

 Ask yourself this would a wholly Jewish state be acceptable to you built on the same criteria that you are building your wholly muslim state. Will you accept the ethnic cleansing of the muslims and the destruction of all their religious sites. The enslavement of the young muslim girls for sexual pleasure. Because this is what you advocate with your wholly muslim state in Palestine against the wishes of the many people who live there.


----------



## docmauser1

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will never be a two state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
Click to expand...

Indeed, palistanians decided against it on their own.


Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?
> 
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
Click to expand...

Palistanians are proving to be incompatible with the concept, of course.


Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
Click to expand...

If one's willing to buy palistanian oils and gases, of course.


Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best
> 
> 
> 
> You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?
Click to expand...

What "business" does that gay BDS have with Israel?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
Click to expand...





 And the Jews have been under attack by the Palestinians for 1400 years, and the whole world was a serious threat to them. 

 Britain was being forced out of Palestine by the HoAP and not being allowed to fulfil its original goals. The HoAP were MASS MURDERING Jews and Christians in an attempt at reducing their number before they could muster a force to take the land promised to them. 

Very simple they target children and schools, they take their grievances out on non combatants as well. They use violence and WMD's to force a solution that no one wants, while using International aid money to MURDER and RAPE.  Every picture, video and report shows acts of violence and aggression against anyone that gets in their way,. In fact they act worse than a pack of rabid dogs going so far as to mutilate the bodies of captured POW's and cannabilising them.   
 If the Jews were half as bad as the HoAP then they would have been utterly destroyed by the world by now.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty.  It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> America has made its share of mistakes.  We are not perfect.  What can I say?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
Click to expand...





 And the Jews have been under attack by the Palestinians for 1400 years, and the whole world was a serious threat to them. 

 Britain was being forced out of Palestine by the HoAP and not being allowed to fulfil its original goals. The HoAP were MASS MURDERING Jews and Christians in an attempt at reducing their number before they could muster a force to take the land promised to them. 

Very simple they target children and schools, they take their grievances out on non combatants as well. They use violence and WMD's to force a solution that no one wants, while using International aid money to MURDER and RAPE.  Every picture, video and report shows acts of violence and aggression against anyone that gets in their way,. In fact they act worse than a pack of rabid dogs going so far as to mutilate the bodies of captured POW's and cannabilising them.   
 If the Jews were half as bad as the HoAP then they would have been utterly destroyed by the world by now.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at the past history of behaviors.
> 
> I take a reasonable man view.
> 
> Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.
> 
> The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.
> 
> I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Attacks are attacks. The excuses don't matter.
Click to expand...




 So why do you defend and support the attacks that are constantly coming from the HoAP while aggressively attacking the Israelis when they defend against such attacks. Because at the end of the day you can not find one attack instigated by Israel against the HoAP that was not in retaliation for terrorism


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.
> 
> Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack.  What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland.  It is the way of the Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I look at the past history of behaviors.
> 
> I take a reasonable man view.
> 
> Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel.  And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.
> 
> The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.
> 
> I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong.  Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
Click to expand...





 Evidence and proof from an unbiased source that shows the MUSLIM hordes had owned the land for a millennia. At the most they owned it for 22 years way back in the 7c, and promptly lost it to the Crusaders. Then it passed into Ottoman control who owned it until 1919, when it changed hands to French and British ownership. The itinerant muslim farm workers owned nothing and moved about the land looking for work. The Jews actually owned land and they have title to the land so have a far greater right to have a homeland as promised in that area. The muslims were given 80% of Palestine initially and they still wanted more, so the British portioned the remainder into 2 parts and gave the muslims the lions share of 55% leaving the Jews with 45% of Palestine that is mostly desert. But being muslim the HoAP wanted everything and all their slaves back as well.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
> So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.
Click to expand...





 Yet you are willing to see the MASS MURDER of Jews because you support and defend the HoAP terrorist methods. You blame the Jews for everything while ignoring the atrocities coming from the muslim terrorists


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will never be a two state solution. What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?
> 
> Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.
> 
> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, you're being short-sighted...Think a hundred or even two hundred years...Israel's neighbors will be modernized Politically and militarily...The Palestinians are the least problem for Israel...Its Al Qaida which is growing not diminishing.
> 
> Already the Europeans are clamoring for a two state solution to the 67 borders to force the original ideas of the Mandate...
> 
> 
> Only Peace and trade with her neighbors can save the Israeli State in the long-run. And I bet if the question is put to the Israeli electorate they will accept the 67 borders for a real sustainable peace...
> 
> If the peace is broken after it is established, all Israel's critics will support her right to defend her-self.
Click to expand...





 Your post shows your complete ignorance of the conflict, THERE WERE NO 1967 BORDERS. It was a ceasefire line that is not enforceable as a border. The UN spelt it out in res 242 when they said land occupied in 1967, not_ the land_. It also spells out that the borders MUST be negotiated and be mutually recognised. The muslims constantly refuse to negotiate borders


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will never be a two state solution. What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?
> 
> Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.
> 
> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, you're being short-sighted...Think a hundred or even two hundred years...Israel's neighbors will be modernized Politically and militarily...The Palestinians are the least problem for Israel...Its Al Qaida which is growing not diminishing.
> 
> Already the Europeans are clamoring for a two state solution to the 67 borders to force the original ideas of the Mandate...
> 
> 
> Only Peace and trade with her neighbors can save the Israeli State in the long-run. And I bet if the question is put to the Israeli electorate they will accept the 67 borders for a real sustainable peace...
> 
> If the peace is broken after it is established, all Israel's critics will support her right to defend her-self.
Click to expand...


Haven't you realised yet that the neighbours of Israel will never change from their 7c ideological violence, they are related to A.Q if you bother to follow the news.

 No such thing as 67 borders it is a falsehood spread by the whole of islam to garner sympathy and support. They are ceasefire lines which have no legal standing as borders.

Israel is already at peace with it two biggest neighbours, and it trades with them on a regular basis.

 Then why haven't they done so when peace has been broken by the HoAP in the past. AND THERE ARE NO 67 BORDERS READ THE UN RESOLUTIONS.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, you have most of it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation.  You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.
> 
> That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending your country is a Noble thing. Creating a Nation from someone else's indigenous homelands is not...
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...




 Claiming to be indigenous so you can steal land is a crime against humanity, and that is what the itinerant muslim farm workers are doing, They have no ties to the land as most arrived in the latter part of the 19c, and then more came at the end of WW2. The truly indigenous are the Jews who can trace habitation and homes in the area going back 3,000 years, the "Palestinians" are lucky if they can trace their roots back 3,000 days


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There is a mistake here.
> 
> I did not justify or take a stand on the decisions made by the Allied Powers, or the League of Nations/UN.  That is, I have not discussed whether the decision was virtuous, sound or valid.
> 
> In fact, I have consistently said that neither side has clean hands, and that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate claims.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?
> 
> Please explain your logic to justify these actions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What I have consistently argued against is:
> 
> The method and approach the Hostile Arab Palestinian and Arab League have adopted as a means of settlement.
> 
> The asymmetric tactics, terrorism, threats, coercion and open conventional conflict launched against, the various parties to the conflict.
> 
> The legal position that the Arab Palestinian exercised some measure of sovereignty over the territory in question and that they were deprived of their right to self-determination.
> 
> There is a a grave difference between the cultures, the one from which I hail and those of the Arab Middle East.  There is, imbedded in this dispute, a moral imperative and responsibility to preserve cultural heritage of each society in distress; including that of the Jewish People.  I do not expect the Arab Palestinian, of the Islamic Persuasion, to even feel the slightest obligation to render help and assistance in that preservation effort.  I suspect that the Allied Powers at San Remo had a similar impression of the Arab Palestinian.
> I do not think there is anything to be gained by expanding the exchange as to why, or why not, the Arab Palestinian has the morality is has.  It is sufficient for me to know that the Arab Palestinian, as a society within the species, is sufficiently different and in opposition to the cause of preservation of a culture in distress; beyond the ability to take the lead in such an effort.  Humanity has seen the lack of sense in cultural preservation before in similar Islamic dominated regions.   This type of effort requires a much higher order of developmental thinking.
> 
> It is now being address on a different plane - a lower order of reactive autonomic response; a position of that adopted by the Palestinian Black Hand in the late 1920s (antagonistic and confrontational).  We need not look back and ask why.  We need only look at today - and to ask - what can be done to restore peace and preserve the culture?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely the problem the Colonial chauvinism of the Europeans over the native Culture and its perceived inferiority as it is today...The real truth is that Arab Culture has long and distinguished roots which is the political glue that binds them...The Radical expression is the growing Jihadist movement. The Arab Spring is a result.
> 
> Its Israel's move land or peace.
Click to expand...





 Your ideal solution will result in the creation of another Islamic state and the genocide of all the Jews living in the M.E. It will also result in a possibly nuclear armed Islamic state run by extremists who would fire the nuclear missiles at the next country they wish to take over. They have no cares for the sanctity of human life and will willingly sacrifice 100 million women and children to destroy Israel. 

 It is islams move peace or complete destruction


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?






 What is this solution, and does it entail the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you tell us point by point how that wod work out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't WAIT to hear THIS...
Click to expand...




 Here are her views regarding Israel and what should be done to the Jews

Noura Erakat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 And she is not a professor of international law at all she is just a  Palestinian-American human rights attorney and activist


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.
> 
> The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.
> 
> Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.
> 
> Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There was no country for the Zionists to take over*
> 
> The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now all you have to do is convince millions of Palestinians that Palestine is not their country.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...





 Why do we need to do that when they are doing it themselves every day.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will never be a two state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> * Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?
Click to expand...


*Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.
> 
> The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.
> 
> Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.
> 
> Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no country for the Zionists to take over
> 
> The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding...Just because there was no Nation called Palestine the people who lived in Palestine since 2-3 thousand years have been genetically proven to be the people who call themselves Palestinians today.
> 
> The Ottomans and Brits exercised an Occupier's Sovereignty by Arms...They had no deeds to the land...
> 
> This no country bit is one of the most insidious lies in this conflict. No one with half a brain buys into this convoluted logic!
Click to expand...




 Then explain the facts that are easily obtainable that show very few actual filastins originate from Palestine, in fact they are mostly nomadic itinerant farm workers wandering the whole of the M.E looking for work.

 No one with any brain disregards the reality that shows the claims are false, and that they UN is to blame for the conflict as it is today.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will never be a two state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims.  This is a political and judicial  issue, not a religious one.  Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them.  And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza!  You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a  Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see?  You expect peace after all that?  You're lucky I'm not there.  If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> * Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"?  You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"?  You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
Click to expand...




*You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.
> 
> The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.
> 
> Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.
> 
> Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no country for the Zionists to take over
> 
> The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding...Just because there was no Nation called Palestine the people who lived in Palestine since 2-3 thousand years have been genetically proven to be the people who call themselves Palestinians today.
> 
> The Ottomans and Brits exercised an Occupier's Sovereignty by Arms...They had no deeds to the land...
> 
> This no country bit is one of the most insidious lies in this conflict. No one with half a brain buys into this convoluted logic!
Click to expand...


Everything I said was 100% correct.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims.  This is a political and judicial  issue, not a religious one.  Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them.  And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER.   Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want.   Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza!  You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a  Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see?  You expect peace after all that?  You're lucky I'm not there.  If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> * Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> * Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"?  You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"?  You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS.   The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza.   No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
Click to expand...




*Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*

*You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no country for the Zionists to take over
> 
> The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding...Just because there was no Nation called Palestine the people who lived in Palestine since 2-3 thousand years have been genetically proven to be the people who call themselves Palestinians today.
> 
> The Ottomans and Brits exercised an Occupier's Sovereignty by Arms...They had no deeds to the land...
> 
> This no country bit is one of the most insidious lies in this conflict. No one with half a brain buys into this convoluted logic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I said was 100% correct.
Click to expand...


Link your so-called truths to a neutral source.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to be kidding...Just because there was no Nation called Palestine the people who lived in Palestine since 2-3 thousand years have been genetically proven to be the people who call themselves Palestinians today.
> 
> The Ottomans and Brits exercised an Occupier's Sovereignty by Arms...They had no deeds to the land...
> 
> This no country bit is one of the most insidious lies in this conflict. No one with half a brain buys into this convoluted logic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I said was 100% correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link your so-called truths to a neutral source.
Click to expand...



You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I said was 100% correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link your so-called truths to a neutral source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?
Click to expand...


the usual deflection and run-around that no one on planet Earth accepts.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link your so-called truths to a neutral source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the usual deflection and run-around that no one on planet Earth accepts.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving me wrong...oh wait, you didn't lol

My comment was a response to Tinmores bullshit repetitive claim that Zionists came to take over their country.

Ask him what country, and you won't get a straight answer.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
Click to expand...


He cant because he just thunk it up


----------



## toastman

Urbanguerrilla said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cant because he just thunk it up
Click to expand...


You just described how Tinmore posts


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I said was 100% correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link your so-called truths to a neutral source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?
Click to expand...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods

In the middle of the 1st century of the Ottoman rule, i.e. 1550 AD, Bernard Lewis in a study of Ottoman registers of the early Ottoman Rule of Palestine reports:[58]


From the mass of detail in the registers, it is possible to extract something like a general picture of the economic life of the country in that period. Out of a total population of about 300,000 souls, between a fifth and a quarter lived in the six towns of Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed, Nablus, Ramle, and Hebron. The remainder consisted mainly of peasants, living in villages of varying size, and engaged in agriculture. Their main food-crops were wheat and barley in that order, supplemented by leguminous pulses, olives, fruit, and vegetables. In and around most of the towns there was a considerable number of vineyards, orchards, and vegetable gardens.

According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 was about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews[59]


----------



## pbel

Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics


----------



## Phoenall

Urbanguerrilla said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as Palestine could not have any borders, what you are falling foul of is the borders of other countries set in stone are not the same thing as the borders of the area they surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you prove that statement like a link or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cant because he just thunk it up
Click to expand...




 Do you mean like this............................

International law and the Arab?Israeli conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 how legal borders should be decided between Israel and a Palestinian state;

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/israels-borders-under-international-law.pdf

 On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted the key "partition"
resolution, Resolution 181, ratifying the British proposals. It also provided for an
independent international mixed status for the city of Palestine. In my opinion, this
Resolution constitutes the first, last, and only legally authorized demarkation of the
Israeli-Palestine borders.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla




----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link your so-called truths to a neutral source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods
> 
> In the middle of the 1st century of the Ottoman rule, i.e. 1550 AD, Bernard Lewis in a study of Ottoman registers of the early Ottoman Rule of Palestine reports:[58]
> 
> 
> From the mass of detail in the registers, it is possible to extract something like a general picture of the economic life of the country in that period. Out of a total population of about 300,000 souls, between a fifth and a quarter lived in the six towns of Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed, Nablus, Ramle, and Hebron. The remainder consisted mainly of peasants, living in villages of varying size, and engaged in agriculture. Their main food-crops were wheat and barley in that order, supplemented by leguminous pulses, olives, fruit, and vegetables. In and around most of the towns there was a considerable number of vineyards, orchards, and vegetable gardens.
> 
> According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 was about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews[59]
Click to expand...


Common Pbel, don't lower yourself to Tinmore's standards. There is Zero proof there


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics



Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.

For fucks sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.

Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.


BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.
> 
> For fucks sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.
> 
> Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.
> 
> 
> BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts
Click to expand...



State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*



*Personally, I'd rather buy American.*




Phoenall said:


> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*


* Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.
> 
> For fucks sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.
> 
> Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.
> 
> 
> BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...


You STILL have not proved your point. 

Take a look at this:

https://www.google.ca/#q=was+palestine+a+country

*The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it*

BULLSHIT. It is the anti - Zionists who's propaganda consists of distorting history (like you are doing right now), and you know it !

PALESTINE was NOT A COUNTRY, it was a territory, and that is not up for debate


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> "..._if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state. Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state_..."


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.
> 
> For fucks sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.
> 
> Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.
> 
> 
> BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...



State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_

There you go


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Personally, I'd rather buy American.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*
Click to expand...


Billy, I think many of the Gazans drive better cars than you do.  Some of them certainly live the higg life.  I remember years ago some Palestinian men complaining in an interview that he doesn't like Hamas, and that the wives of Hamas leaders have maids from Sri Lanka.  Surely you must remember the time years ago when someone in Hamas was asked how come his son doesn't become a suicide bomber, and he answered "He has better things to do."  For all we know, they send their children out of the country to be schooled.

Tunnel Vision Of Gaza's Luxury Car Smugglers


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.
> 
> For fucks sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.
> 
> Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.
> 
> 
> BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_
> 
> There you go
Click to expand...


So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_
> 
> There you go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
Click to expand...


SO when DID Palestine become a country? 
You failed to answer this questions among others that I have asked


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_
> 
> There you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO when DID Palestine become a country?
> You failed to answer this questions among others that I have asked
Click to expand...


When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO when DID Palestine become a country?
> You failed to answer this questions among others that I have asked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO when DID Palestine become a country?
> You failed to answer this questions among others that I have asked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century,* religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation, though there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority of various Christian denominations


----------



## toastman

And nothing there said that Palestine became a country after 67 AD


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

In some respects I have to agree.



pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...[/COLOR]The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_
> 
> There you go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In earlier times, this simplified idea was true.  But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.  

In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted.  They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.

And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).  

As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.  

And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect: 

To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.

It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-D&#299;n al-Qass&#257;m, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.

The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle.  Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Rocco, in 1948, was their a state/country/nation by the name of 'Palestine' ?


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> Rocco, in 1948, was their a state/country/nation by the name of 'Palestine' ?


You might check with Sherria. She has bible maps clear back to Alley Oop.


----------



## P F Tinmore

pbel said:


> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics



Indeed.



> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that *Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.*
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> In a broader international context, the* Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the *Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.*124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Your citation actually works against you.  For it is out of context.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that *Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.*
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a broader international context, the* &#8220;Nationality law&#8230; showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship.&#8221;90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: &#8220;The ratification of the *Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.&#8221;123 And, thereafter, &#8220;Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.*&#8221;124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*

The "Wiki" entry you cite --- was cherry picked.  You left out the part that says: "In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[42]"

_*Reference:*_ File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650&#8211;652
Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. *In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.*​
*(COMMENT)*

The attempt to use the ICJ Judgment #5 as a means to justify the existence of a state or nation called Palestine, in the context that that such a nation or state was in the hands of the indigenous population and had some measure of legality is ridiculous.  Judgment #5 say that the successor government was the UK, and was obligated to make good the civil claims incurred by the Ottoman Empire for that territory.  

We've discussed this before; several times.

I suggest you read a more objective view (mind you it is also an Arab view) from PediaView.com Open Source Encyclopedia - State of Palestine, which states in part:



			
				State of Palestine said:
			
		

> Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. In 2012, it was granted observer status by the United Nations (UN).[15] It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,[16] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital.[ii][3][4] The areas claimed for the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, with the Palestinian Authority exercising socio-political administration since 1993 in limited areas.[7]
> 
> The 1974 Arab League summit designated the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and reaffirmed "their right to establish an independent state of urgency."[17] The PLO held observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" from 22 November 1974,[18][19] which entitled it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. After the Declaration of Independence, the UN General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.[20][21] In spite of this decision, the PLO did not participate at the UN in its capacity of the State of Palestine's government.[22]



But then there is a further explanation:



			
				State succession said:
			
		

> A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[179] The Court said that specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) had been preserved under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and a chapter of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.[180] In a separate opinion, Judge Higgins argued that since United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 to Resolution 1515 in 2003, the "key underlying requirements" have been that *"Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State"*, with resolution 1515 endorsing the Road map for peace proposed by the Middle East Quartet, as a means to achieve these obligations through negotiation.[181]



*Note:* UN Map #3243 is directly attached to the UNSC Resolution 242.

Simply put, the Palestinian history, as a State, opens with its Declaration of Independence in November 1988, and not before; especially when it comes time to pay the bills, look and see who does it.  In the Judgment #5, the Government of Palestine was the UK and they were obligated.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Urbanguerrilla said:


>





 Still waiting for one of you idiotic left wing losers to show that the land is not Jewish owned. You can claim all you like that the settlements are illegal but until you produce the proof then it is just RACIST JEW HATRED


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods
> 
> In the middle of the 1st century of the Ottoman rule, i.e. 1550 AD, Bernard Lewis in a study of Ottoman registers of the early Ottoman Rule of Palestine reports:[58]
> 
> 
> From the mass of detail in the registers, it is possible to extract something like a general picture of the economic life of the country in that period. Out of a total population of about 300,000 souls, between a fifth and a quarter lived in the six towns of Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed, Nablus, Ramle, and Hebron. The remainder consisted mainly of peasants, living in villages of varying size, and engaged in agriculture. Their main food-crops were wheat and barley in that order, supplemented by leguminous pulses, olives, fruit, and vegetables. In and around most of the towns there was a considerable number of vineyards, orchards, and vegetable gardens.
> 
> According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 was about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews[59]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common Pbel, don't lower yourself to Tinmore's standards. There is Zero proof there
Click to expand...




 In 1850 Palestine took in all of trans Jordan and parts of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, so by the time you remove the populations of those areas you find that the Palestine of today was about equal in numbers between Jews, Christians and muslims


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.
> 
> For fucks sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.
> 
> Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.
> 
> 
> BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...




 And still no proof that Palestine was ever a state, because if it is ever declared a state then many areas around the world will be demanding their recognition of statehood. Quite a few in the USA that could cripple the economy by taking away the oil


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> 
> *Or turning it round who gave the HoAP muslims the right to decide the Jews path*
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> *In August 2005 Israel completely withdrew from gaza and did not impose any restrictions or blockades until 2008, So were was the control of what went in or out other than that accorded to all nations under International law. How old are you and what grade did you stop your schooling, You sound like a 9 year old*
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> 
> *Yes goods like grad rockets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, H.E, Nitrates and other weapons to be used to target Israel children. But then you NAZI JEW HATING SHIT don't believe that the JOOOOS should be allowed to defend themselves from attack do you. Is it any of your business who the UK vote for, and if they want to withdraw from the EU, because your tame neo Marxist chimp thinks it is. *
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Personally, I'd rather buy American.*
> 
> *Then stop attacking the Jews because you are a NAZI JEW HATER because they keep 30% of American defence workers in employment. And going on the quality of the US goods I have then you are easily pleased with trash quality. Who wants a car that wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti*
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*
Click to expand...


*Do I need to highlight all your LIES and PROFANITIES above, in the UK we say that this is a lack of education and is how low life's and crack whores talk.*


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity *(such as an autonomous territory of a country).
> You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_
> 
> There you go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
Click to expand...




 The thing is the world did not recognise them as a state until that time, and it has not accepted its borders as they are in breach on the UN charter


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO when DID Palestine become a country?
> You failed to answer this questions among others that I have asked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.
Click to expand...




 So in 67AD the majority of the inhabitants were Jewish, does this mean that the land in now Jewish. Does it also mean that the muslims have no claim to the land as they were not to be invented for another 600 years or so.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century,* religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation, though there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority of various Christian denominations
Click to expand...





 And not a muslim HoAP in sight, thanks for proving the present day filastins don't have a claim on the land


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> *
> In some respects I have to agree.*
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers_
> 
> There you go
> 
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In earlier times, this simplified idea was true.  But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.
> 
> In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted.  They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.
> 
> And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).
> 
> As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.
> 
> And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect:
> 
> To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.
> 
> It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-D&#299;n al-Qass&#257;m, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.
> 
> The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle.  Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> *
> In some respects I have to agree.*
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In earlier times, this simplified idea was true.  But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.
> 
> In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted.  They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.
> 
> And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).
> 
> As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.
> 
> And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect:
> 
> To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.
> 
> It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-D&#299;n al-Qass&#257;m, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.
> 
> The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle.  Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...
> 
> Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...
Click to expand...




 have you not noticed that the examples you give are islamonazi land grabs that should be fought against. Why is it that only islamonazis are allowed to steal other peoples land by force of arms, and then ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants with your full backing. Lets take Kosovo shall we when insurgent muslims invaded and started a war to force the true indigenous to give up their land in favour of islam. The same thing in south sudan an illegal land grab by Islamic insurgents.

 Are you one of their dhimmi supporters ?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> *
> In some respects I have to agree.*
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In earlier times, this simplified idea was true.  But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.
> 
> In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted.  They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.
> 
> And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).
> 
> As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.
> 
> And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect:
> 
> To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.
> 
> It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-D&#299;n al-Qass&#257;m, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.
> 
> The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle.  Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...
> 
> Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you not noticed that the examples you give are islamonazi land grabs that should be fought against. Why is it that only islamonazis are allowed to steal other peoples land by force of arms, and then ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants with your full backing. Lets take Kosovo shall we when insurgent muslims invaded and started a war to force the true indigenous to give up their land in favour of islam. The same thing in south sudan an illegal land grab by Islamic insurgents.
> 
> Are you one of their dhimmi supporters ?
Click to expand...


Arguing with a very British/Zionist racist is ludicrous...People have a right to choose their Religion. Your ideas of Western supremacy are an anachronism.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.



pbel said:


> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity.  It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace.  As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries.  It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.



pbel said:


> Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs.  It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.

Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt.  Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.  

Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.   



pbel said:


> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture).  It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings.  The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process.  For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making. 

This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world.  There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed_ (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture)_.



pbel said:


> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...


*(COMMENT)*

And this is one of those areas, in which I agree.  The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.  

It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument.  Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort.  In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this solution, and does it entail the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.
Click to expand...


International law calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?


----------



## toastman

So many of my questions unanswered


----------



## P F Tinmore

> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).
Click to expand...


Your post is based on *false premise.*

You assume that on one hand there were Palestinians and separately there were Jews. That is not true. The PLO Charter states that native Jews are legitimate Palestinian citizens. International law says the same thing. Even the Palestinian constitution of today states that *all *Palestinians are *equal under the law* without regard to race, religion, sex...

So, where do you get your opinion?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is based on *false premise.*
> 
> You assume that on one hand there were Palestinians and separately there were Jews. That is not true. The PLO Charter states that native Jews are legitimate Palestinian citizens. International law says the same thing. Even the Palestinian constitution of today states that *all *Palestinians are *equal under the law* without regard to race, religion, sex...
> 
> So, where do you get your opinion?
Click to expand...


His post is not based on false premise. But yours is. 
What does your response have to do with what Rocco said? 

You need to deal with your reading comprehension problem


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity.  It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace.  As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries.  It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs.  It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.
> 
> Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt.  Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.
> 
> Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).
> 
> The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture).  It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings.  The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process.  For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.
> 
> This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world.  There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed_ (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture)_.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And this is one of those areas, in which I agree.  The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.
> 
> It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument.  Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort.  In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...
> 
> Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you not noticed that the examples you give are islamonazi land grabs that should be fought against. Why is it that only islamonazis are allowed to steal other peoples land by force of arms, and then ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants with your full backing. Lets take Kosovo shall we when insurgent muslims invaded and started a war to force the true indigenous to give up their land in favour of islam. The same thing in south sudan an illegal land grab by Islamic insurgents.
> 
> Are you one of their dhimmi supporters ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arguing with a very British/Zionist racist is ludicrous...People have a right to choose their Religion. Your ideas of Western supremacy are an anachronism.
Click to expand...




Its not the people choosing their religion it is the religion being forced on them by the sword. But then you don't see that as a problem when it is done by Islamic terrorists do you. Every theatre of war currently happening has at least one Islamic side involved, and it is the Islamic side that claims the land is theirs. Just wait until the muslims choose your religion for you, as they are doing all over the world.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.
> 
> Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.
> 
> Why don't we just run with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this solution, and does it entail the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?
Click to expand...




 Care to provide a link to show that International Law calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews as your fake professor of International law says is the case. Only this time use an unbiased site that supports your claims


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is based on *false premise.*
> 
> You assume that on one hand there were Palestinians and separately there were Jews. That is not true. The PLO Charter states that native Jews are legitimate Palestinian citizens. International law says the same thing. Even the Palestinian constitution of today states that *all *Palestinians are *equal under the law* without regard to race, religion, sex...
> 
> So, where do you get your opinion?
Click to expand...





 While the same charter says that no Israeli Jews will be allowed to LIVE in Palestine doesn't it . Kinda makes a mockery of your whole stance regarding the PLO charter as it says that there is no longer such a thing as native Jews


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.



pbel said:


> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?


*(COMMENT)*


"(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

*The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out &#8212; man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).  

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity.  It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace.  As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries.  It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs.  It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.
> 
> Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt.  Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.
> 
> Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).
> 
> The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture).  It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings.  The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process.  For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.
> 
> This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world.  There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed_ (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture)_.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And this is one of those areas, in which I agree.  The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.
> 
> It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument.  Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort.  In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
Click to expand...


First of all, it's not Homelands in the plural.  Take out the S.  That tiny country is barely enough land for one Homeland. 
Secondly, if you've ever read a history of the Jewish people, you'd see that for 2,000 years they have suffered pogroms, blood libels, expulsions, inquisitions, etc.  And we haven't even come to the Holocaust yet.  In this day and age it's pretty easy to emigrate to America, but it wasn't always that way.  When my mom's family were forced out of Poland, they applied for visas to America, but they were denied.  They had no choice but to go to the only Jewish country in the world--Israel.  Jews need one place in the world that they can call their own.  Palestinians are part of the larger Arab people.  This can be seen by the fact that Abbas can't seem to make a decision for his own people, on his own, without consulting the Arab League first.  Arabs have 22 countries where they can eat Arab food, dress in Arab clothing, speak the Arabic language, practice Arabic culture and religions, and live among their Arab brethren.  They could even share in Arab wealth and oil money, if they were smart enough.  We have one country like that, and it's also a land rich in Jewish history.  Every city and part of Israel has a significant Jewish event associated with it.  Therefore, for all these reasons, we might be forced to share Israel with the Arabs, but we will never give it up totally.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity.  It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace.  As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries.  It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs.  It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.
> 
> Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt.  Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.
> 
> Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone.  It has nothing at all to do with what is right.   In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).
> 
> The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture).  It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings.  The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process.  For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.
> 
> This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world.  There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed_ (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture)_.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And this is one of those areas, in which I agree.  The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.
> 
> It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument.  Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort.  In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
Click to expand...





 They never did as their indigenous homelands are still there, just as they were when they left them to migrate to Palestine looking for work.  If you call living in fear or beatings, rape, and murder living in peace then I would not like to see your living in fear. Don't forget the land grabs by the muslims that had been going on for 1400 years every time the Jews turned the land fertile. Places like Hebron that saw MASSACRE after MASSACRE of the Jews that lived there. Have you read the dhimmi laws and what the non muslims had to contend with. No horses they were reserved for the muslims, no weapons, distinctive clothing and marks ( ring a bell as this is were Hitler got the idea from ) no open show of their religion, no repairs to their religious buildings. There are stories of Jews getting beaten to death by mobs of muslims  for slowing their shadow to fall close to a mosque, others of Jews getting beaten for allegedly disrespecting islam because the local shiek wanted his daughter as a sex slave. The Jews never knew peace for over 2000 years.

 What did the Jews do to deserve the atrocities of muslim psychopathic warlords who also were instrumental in the holocaust led by the grand mufti himself. The same grand mufti who begged Hitler to send him more Jews as he was running out in Palestine.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This is exactly the example I was eluding to.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.*
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
> The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).
> 
> AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This is exactly the example I was eluding to.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.*
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
> The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).
> 
> AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
Click to expand...





 Still fantasising about the non existing '67 borders, they are the '67 ceasefire lines look at UN res 242


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This is exactly the example I was eluding to.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.*
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
> The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).
> 
> AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still fantasising about the non existing '67 borders, they are the '67 ceasefire lines look at UN res 242
Click to expand...


Indeed the '67 borders are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be borders. These lines ran along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

They also ran along the international borders between Palestine and Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, and Palestine and Egypt. None of those armistice lines were ever borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This is exactly the example I was eluding to.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
> The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).
> 
> AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*



Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.

And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.

You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.

You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.

You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.

Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.


----------



## rhodescholar

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Secondly, if you've ever read a history of the Jewish people, you'd see that for 2,000 years they have suffered pogroms, blood libels, expulsions, inquisitions, etc.  And we haven't even come to the Holocaust yet.  In this day and age it's pretty easy to emigrate to America, but it wasn't always that way.  When my mom's family were forced out of Poland, they applied for visas to America, but they were denied.  They had no choice but to go to the only Jewish country in the world--Israel.  Jews need one place in the world that they can call their own.  Palestinians are part of the larger Arab people.  This can be seen by the fact that Abbas can't seem to make a decision for his own people, on his own, without consulting the Arab League first.  Arabs have 22 countries where they can eat Arab food, dress in Arab clothing, speak the Arabic language, practice Arabic culture and religions, and live among their Arab brethren.  They could even share in Arab wealth and oil money, if they were smart enough.  We have one country like that, and it's also a land rich in Jewish history.  Every city and part of Israel has a significant Jewish event associated with it.  Therefore, for all these reasons, we might be forced to share Israel with the Arabs, but we will never give it up totally.



The whole argument of "rights" for the arabs is total garbage; it is a fig leaf to slaughter as many jews as possible, forcing them out of the mideast, just as the animal filth arab muslims are doing and have done for centuries to the multitudes of other non-muslim groups.

I laugh when I read the crap posted about how "good the relations were between arabs and jews before Israel/zionism", it's is such abject garbage that it makes the one posting it look like an idiot chimp, totally devoid of history.

The bottom line is that the arab muslim will not tolerate the rights or sovereignty of any other group in the middle east, period.

All else is hot air and bullshit.


----------



## rhodescholar

Phoenall said:


> They never did as their indigenous homelands are still there, just as they were when they left them to migrate to Palestine looking for work.  If you call living in fear or beatings, rape, and murder living in peace then I would not like to see your living in fear. Don't forget the land grabs by the muslims that had been going on for 1400 years every time the Jews turned the land fertile. Places like Hebron that saw MASSACRE after MASSACRE of the Jews that lived there. Have you read the dhimmi laws and what the non muslims had to contend with. No horses they were reserved for the muslims, no weapons, distinctive clothing and marks ( ring a bell as this is were Hitler got the idea from ) no open show of their religion, no repairs to their religious buildings. There are stories of Jews getting beaten to death by mobs of muslims  for slowing their shadow to fall close to a mosque, others of Jews getting beaten for allegedly disrespecting islam because the local shiek wanted his daughter as a sex slave. The Jews never knew peace for over 2000 years.
> 
> What did the Jews do to deserve the atrocities of muslim psychopathic warlords who also were instrumental in the holocaust led by the grand mufti himself. The same grand mufti who begged Hitler to send him more Jews as he was running out in Palestine.



Notice how the same ***** who whine that arab muslims are second-class citizens and are discriminated against in Israel never mention how the jews lived as dhimmis for 1,400 years, enduring constant pogroms and attacks under arab muslim control, nor do they mention what arab muslims are doing to minorities in the 22 arab muslim countries today.

It's all israel, all day...just boring, repetitive garbage.  Filth like the tinmore group that post here are seen all over the web using various monikers, they are scum and not to be taken seriously.


----------



## rhodescholar

pbel said:


> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.



Another totally non-credible poster.

The arab muslims have not agreed to anything that does not include the complete elimination of Israel.  When one side refuses to recognize the rights, let alone the existence of the other side, and demands that Israel accept 5 million falsely named "refugees" into its midst, that is not acceptance - that's is nonsense.

And posters like you still have no answer as to why, when Israel was within the '67 borders, was there more terrorism and war waged against it than almost any other time.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This is exactly the example I was eluding to.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
> The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).
> 
> AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.
> 
> And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.
Click to expand...


Lol he never said any of that. You are just putting words in his mouth. Your definition of self defence differs from the global meaning


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.



pbel said:


> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.


*(COMMENT)*

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

In part, you are correct.  The Armistice Lines are not international borders in the respect that they are mutually agreed.  Armistice Lines are temporarily imposed; and treated similarly to borders.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed the '67 borders are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be borders. These lines ran along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
> 
> They also ran along the international borders between Palestine and Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, and Palestine and Egypt. None of those armistice lines were ever borders.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, and they are likely to stay that way for many years; given the unreconcilable differences.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.
> 
> And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.


*(COMMENT)*

The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.

The external interference was on the part of the Arab League.  There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.



P F Tinmore said:


> You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description.  There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State.  The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.



P F Tinmore said:


> You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.


*(COMMENT)*

I did not say that.  In fact I argue for it.  Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.



P F Tinmore said:


> You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.


*(COMMENT)*

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves.  They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution.  The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it.  They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy.  The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate.  This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.

This is not self defense.  The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks.  The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.


*(COMMENT)*

Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
Click to expand...


You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Just a minor "timeline" reminder.



pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Palestinian Black Hand was *founded in 1930 *and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.

The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine *between 1931* and 1948.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Just a minor "timeline" reminder.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinian Black Hand was *founded in 1930 *and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.
> 
> The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine *between 1931* and 1948.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...

Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers  was a given and justified fiat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.
> 
> And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.
> 
> The external interference was on the part of the Arab League.  There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description.  There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State.  The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not say that.  In fact I argue for it.  Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves.  They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution.  The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it.  They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy.  The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate.  This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.
> 
> This is not self defense.  The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks.  The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Holy deflection, Batman!

How about making a serious attempt at addressing my post.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline
Click to expand...


There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Your citation actually works against you.  For it is out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that *Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.*
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Wiki" entry you cite --- was cherry picked.  You left out the part that says: "In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[42]"
> 
> _*Reference:*_ File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment
> 
> Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:
> 
> Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650652
> Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.
> 
> I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."
> 
> The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. *In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.*​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The attempt to use the ICJ Judgment #5 as a means to justify the existence of a state or nation called Palestine, in the context that that such a nation or state was in the hands of the indigenous population and had some measure of legality is ridiculous.  Judgment #5 say that the successor government was the UK, and was obligated to make good the civil claims incurred by the Ottoman Empire for that territory.
> 
> We've discussed this before; several times.
> 
> I suggest you read a more objective view (mind you it is also an Arab view) from PediaView.com Open Source Encyclopedia - State of Palestine, which states in part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. In 2012, it was granted observer status by the United Nations (UN).[15] It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,[16] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital.[ii][3][4] The areas claimed for the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, with the Palestinian Authority exercising socio-political administration since 1993 in limited areas.[7]
> 
> The 1974 Arab League summit designated the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and reaffirmed "their right to establish an independent state of urgency."[17] The PLO held observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" from 22 November 1974,[18][19] which entitled it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. After the Declaration of Independence, the UN General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.[20][21] In spite of this decision, the PLO did not participate at the UN in its capacity of the State of Palestine's government.[22]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then there is a further explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State succession said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[179] The Court said that specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) had been preserved under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and a chapter of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.[180] In a separate opinion, Judge Higgins argued that since United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 to Resolution 1515 in 2003, the "key underlying requirements" have been that *"Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State"*, with resolution 1515 endorsing the Road map for peace proposed by the Middle East Quartet, as a means to achieve these obligations through negotiation.[181]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Note:* UN Map #3243 is directly attached to the UNSC Resolution 242.
> 
> Simply put, the Palestinian history, as a State, opens with its Declaration of Independence in November 1988, and not before; especially when it comes time to pay the bills, look and see who does it.  In the Judgment #5, the Government of Palestine was the UK and they were obligated.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.



I think you are mistaken.

Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Your citation actually works against you.  For it is out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Wiki" entry you cite --- was cherry picked.  You left out the part that says: "In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[42]"
> 
> _*Reference:*_ File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment
> 
> Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:
> 
> Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650652
> Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.
> 
> I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."
> 
> The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. *In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.*​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The attempt to use the ICJ Judgment #5 as a means to justify the existence of a state or nation called Palestine, in the context that that such a nation or state was in the hands of the indigenous population and had some measure of legality is ridiculous.  Judgment #5 say that the successor government was the UK, and was obligated to make good the civil claims incurred by the Ottoman Empire for that territory.
> 
> We've discussed this before; several times.
> 
> I suggest you read a more objective view (mind you it is also an Arab view) from PediaView.com Open Source Encyclopedia - State of Palestine, which states in part:
> 
> 
> 
> But then there is a further explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> *Note:* UN Map #3243 is directly attached to the UNSC Resolution 242.
> 
> Simply put, the Palestinian history, as a State, opens with its Declaration of Independence in November 1988, and not before; especially when it comes time to pay the bills, look and see who does it.  In the Judgment #5, the Government of Palestine was the UK and they were obligated.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are mistaken.
> 
> Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.
Click to expand...


Did you read that somewhere or did you make that up ?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Just a minor "timeline" reminder.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinian Black Hand was *founded in 1930 *and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.
> 
> The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine *between 1931* and 1948.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...
> 
> Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers  was a given and justified fiat.
Click to expand...


And if Arabs werent attacking and killing Jews, Irgun would not have come into existence.
Am I doing it right Pbel?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.
> 
> And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.
> 
> The external interference was on the part of the Arab League.  There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description.  There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State.  The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not say that.  In fact I argue for it.  Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves.  They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution.  The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it.  They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy.  The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate.  This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.
> 
> This is not self defense.  The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks.  The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!
> 
> How about making a serious attempt at addressing my post.
Click to expand...

How can you say that?!!?!
Uhhh he addressed every comment on that post.
It seems like this is your response when you have no rebuttal. Very immature


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.
Click to expand...


The local Jews were invaders? Interesting concept


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The local Jews were invaders? Interesting concept
Click to expand...


No, the local Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

The Jews imported by the Zionists were the invaders.


----------



## toastman

An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.



The people down the street can invite someone to your house?

Interesting concept.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people down the street can invite someone to your house?
> 
> Interesting concept.
Click to expand...


Who are the people down the street


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Just a minor "timeline" reminder.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinian Black Hand was *founded in 1930 *and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.
> 
> The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine *between 1931* and 1948.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...
> 
> Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers  was a given and justified fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Arabs werent attacking and killing Jews, Irgun would not have come into existence.
> Am I doing it right Pbel?
Click to expand...




The Irgum terrorized the British to force them to leave so they could turn on the Arabs.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...
> 
> Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers  was a given and justified fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if Arabs werent attacking and killing Jews, Irgun would not have come into existence.
> Am I doing it right Pbel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irgum terrorized the British to force them to leave so they could turn on the Arabs.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiggghtttttt


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.



P F Tinmore said:


> In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are mistaken.
> 
> Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain."  My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.

The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan.  The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.

Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.

In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:



> "Palestine is today (27 Feb 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."



The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.

You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are mistaken.
> 
> Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain."  My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.
> 
> The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan.  The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.
> 
> Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.
> 
> In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine is today (27 Feb 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.
> 
> You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

And herein rests the BIG misunderstanding.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people down the street can invite someone to your house?
> 
> Interesting concept.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It was not "your house!"  That is to say, that the Mandate of Palestine was never under the sovereign authority of the indigenous population (until 1988).  The invitation was extended to the Jewish People by the Allied Powers through the Mandatory, having full authority (Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Powers) under the Mandate.

It was not the people down the street, it was the people that owned the street (using your analogy).

The invaders (external interference) was anyone entering the Mandate Territory with the intent to obstruct the implementation of the Mandate (one mission of which was to establish a Jewish National Home).  It was not a decision left to the Hostile Arab Population; judged unready for independence.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Don't try and twist my words.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are mistaken.
> 
> Britain had some responsibilities as the assigned, temporary administrator of Palestine but it was not the successor state. Palestine was a separate entity. It was never a part of Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain."  My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.
> 
> The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan.  The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.
> 
> Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.
> 
> In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine is today (27 Feb 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.
> 
> You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government).  On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> And herein rests the BIG misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invader is someone who comes uninvited. That is what invading os Tinmore. The European Jews were not only encouraged to come to Mandatory Palestine, but their immigration was fascilitated by the British. Yes, the Same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make those kind of decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people down the street can invite someone to your house?
> 
> Interesting concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was not "your house!"  That is to say, that the Mandate of Palestine was never under the sovereign authority of the indigenous population (until 1988).  The invitation was extended to the Jewish People by the Allied Powers through the Mandatory, having full authority (Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Powers) under the Mandate.
> 
> It was not the people down the street, it was the people that owned the street (using your analogy).
> 
> The invaders (external interference) was anyone entering the Mandate Territory with the intent to obstruct the implementation of the Mandate (one mission of which was to establish a Jewish National Home).  It was not a decision left to the Hostile Arab Population; judged unready for independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


A mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the people (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone.

Any variation from that was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant and the inherent rights of the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't try and twist my words.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I unserstand that you have to make this assumption in order to substantiate your claim.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I never claimed that the Palestine was "part of Britain."  My claim is that it exercised government power over Palestine, both Executive and Legislative.
> 
> The Palestinian people, under whatever cover or title, never exercised any autonomy or control over any portion of the Mandate of Palestine, less that designated as Trans-Jordan.  The Mandatory would maintain such authority and control over the territory until such time as the indigenous population were believed by League of Nation members to be ready for independence and self-government.
> 
> Finally, in 1948, the Mandatory Government of Palestine (UK) transfers to powers to their successor.
> 
> In the transfer of successor government authority, you will notice that the UK states:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandatory exercised inherent governmental authority.
> 
> You may try and re-interpret it any way you want, but in the end, there was no State of Palestine until November 1988 recognized by anyone anywhere except in a few radical minds of some very HoAP.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government).  On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Did I say that?  I think not.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't try and twist my words.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Britain was not the successor state, who was?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government).  On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

No Force required.  Cooperation and coordination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Did I say that?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Don't try and twist my words.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UK, as the Mandatory exercised all governmental authority over the territory under Mandate (the de facto government).  On termination of the Mandate, the UNPC became the successor government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> No Force required.  Cooperation and coordination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The UNPC was to define the borders between the two states. When did that happen?

When did the UNPC transfer land to Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Again with the misunderstanding of the process.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Did I say that?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, Israel took Palestine from the UN by force?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> No Force required.  Cooperation and coordination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UNPC was to define the borders between the two states. When did that happen?
> 
> When did the UNPC transfer land to Israel?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is not a real-estate transaction for property ownership.  It is an establishment of sovereignty.  The borders were accepted as in Part II, Section B, Boundaries - as outlined in Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

The establishment of a Sovereign State is not about land ownership (a civil liberty).  You can go back through the records, you will not find any of the Arab States with a deed to the property for their respective states.



			
				PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
			
		

> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 *has been implemented*."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again with the misunderstanding of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Did I say that?  I think not.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> No Force required.  Cooperation and coordination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UNPC was to define the borders between the two states. When did that happen?
> 
> When did the UNPC transfer land to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a real-estate transaction for property ownership.  It is an establishment of sovereignty.  The borders were accepted as in Part II, Section B, Boundaries - as outlined in Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> The establishment of a Sovereign State is not about land ownership (a civil liberty).  You can go back through the records, you will not find any of the Arab States with a deed to the property for their respective states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 *has been implemented*."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I think you are confused. First you say that Palestine belongs to the British. Then the British gives Palestine to the UNPC.

Then Palestine is Israel. Where is this transfer to Israel. Surely something like that should be a documented agreement including defined borders of land transferred.

Show me something.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are so very confused!



P F Tinmore said:


> I think you are confused. First you say that Palestine belongs to the British. Then the British gives Palestine to the UNPC.


*(COMMENT)*

I never said Palestine belongs to the British.  I said the UK exercised governing authority over the Mandate of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Then Palestine is Israel. Where is this transfer to Israel. Surely something like that should be a documented agreement including defined borders of land transferred.
> 
> Show me something.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, it is not a real-estate deal.  There is no transfer of property, not for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and certainly not for Israel.

The Mandate Authority (in this case the UNPC) allowed Israel to Declare Independence upon the terms and conditions established in the implementation process, General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The boundaries were established in PART II - Boundaries, Section B, as annotated in Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

Israel Declares Independence on Mid-night 14-15 May '48; the UN Palestine Commission authenticates implementation and adjourns;  Israeli Foreign Minister Makes Application for Admission in Paris, 29 November 1948, the UN Security Council received and considered the application of Israel for membership - Recommends approval 4 March 1949; General Assembly Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949.  

Done!

The process is not required to please the Arab Palestinian.  It is a process that was almost universally used throughout the region.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are so very confused!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused. First you say that Palestine belongs to the British. Then the British gives Palestine to the UNPC.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I never said Palestine belongs to the British.  I said the UK exercised governing authority over the Mandate of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Palestine is Israel. Where is this transfer to Israel. Surely something like that should be a documented agreement including defined borders of land transferred.
> 
> Show me something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, it is not a real-estate deal.  There is no transfer of property, not for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and certainly not for Israel.
> 
> The Mandate Authority (in this case the UNPC) allowed Israel to Declare Independence upon the terms and conditions established in the implementation process, General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The boundaries were established in PART II - Boundaries, Section B, as annotated in Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> Israel Declares Independence on Mid-night 14-15 May '48; the UN Palestine Commission authenticates implementation and adjourns;  Israeli Foreign Minister Makes Application for Admission in Paris, 29 November 1948, the UN Security Council received and considered the application of Israel for membership - Recommends approval 4 March 1949; General Assembly Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949.
> 
> Done!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


OK, Israel has political recognition but where is it? There are no documents showing Israel acquiring any land.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements mention Palestine many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is nonsense!



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, Israel has political recognition but where is it? There are no documents showing Israel acquiring any land.
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements mention Palestine many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

Every one of the Armistice Agreements is a two-party agreement; Israel and one of the Adjacent Arab States.  Nowhere in any of the agreements is a state called Palestine a party to the agreement.  It is a regional name.

On one side of the line is one party, and on the other side of the line there is Israel.  Palestine is just the name of the turf the line is drawn on, until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Israel has political recognition but where is it? There are no documents showing Israel acquiring any land.
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements mention Palestine many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Every one of the Armistice Agreements is a two-party agreement; Israel and one of the Adjacent Arab States.  Nowhere in any of the agreements is a state called Palestine a party to the agreement.  It is a regional name.
> 
> On one side of the line is one party, and on the other side of the line there is Israel.  Palestine is just the name of the turf the line is drawn on, until 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Not really. You are grasping at straws. The armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders except with Jordan and Egypt where they deviated for their occupations.

The main fact is that Israel has never acquired any land. That would make Israel a foreign, military occupation of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is Jihadist and Fedayeen speak.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Israel has political recognition but where is it? There are no documents showing Israel acquiring any land.
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements mention Palestine many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Every one of the Armistice Agreements is a two-party agreement; Israel and one of the Adjacent Arab States.  Nowhere in any of the agreements is a state called Palestine a party to the agreement.  It is a regional name.
> 
> On one side of the line is one party, and on the other side of the line there is Israel.  Palestine is just the name of the turf the line is drawn on, until 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. You are grasping at straws. The armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders except with Jordan and Egypt where they deviated for their occupations.
> 
> The main fact is that Israel has never acquired any land. That would make Israel a foreign, military occupation of Palestine.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

With the exception of the military occupation under the Oslo Accords in the West Bank, you are wrong.  But that is another argument about the HoAP and their core beliefs and their origins.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is Jihadist and Fedayeen speak.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Every one of the Armistice Agreements is a two-party agreement; Israel and one of the Adjacent Arab States.  Nowhere in any of the agreements is a state called Palestine a party to the agreement.  It is a regional name.
> 
> On one side of the line is one party, and on the other side of the line there is Israel.  Palestine is just the name of the turf the line is drawn on, until 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. You are grasping at straws. The armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders except with Jordan and Egypt where they deviated for their occupations.
> 
> The main fact is that Israel has never acquired any land. That would make Israel a foreign, military occupation of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the military occupation under the Oslo Accords in the West Bank, you are wrong.  But that is another argument about the HoAP and their core beliefs and their origins.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


So, where is Israel's land?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> So, where is Israel's land?







Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where is Israel's land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Where are such documents of any Arab country?



P F Tinmore said:


> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?


*(COMMENT)*

Where are the documents for the acquisitions you claim Palestine has.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Where are such documents of any Arab country?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where are the documents for the acquisitions you claim Palestine has.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Several post war agreements set Palestine's international borders that finalized by the Treaty of Lausanne when all of the newly created states were release from Ottoman rule.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still fantasising about the non existing '67 borders, they are the '67 ceasefire lines look at UN res 242
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed the '67 borders are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be borders. These lines ran along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
> 
> They also ran along the international borders between Palestine and Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, and Palestine and Egypt. None of those armistice lines were ever borders.
Click to expand...





 Nor has Palestine had international borders, if it did then they would take in part of the Sinai, all of Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon. Because that was the extent of the British mandate for Palestine at the beginning. It did not contain just the tiny part that is now under dispute. Just a paltry 20% of Palestine is what the argument is over a tiny little part that you think is the whole of Palestine and has had international borders since it was part of the Ottoman empire.  The only international borders extant are those of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, Palestine was broken up and given away to mostly arab rulers during the British mandate. Don't see you complaining about those land grabs by Saudi princes and Iranian clerics


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This is exactly the example I was eluding to.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?
> 
> I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?
> 
> For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*  And that is just it.  There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept.  They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​
> The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma.  It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it.  And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same.   In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab.  The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian.  They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it.  "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."  (Tyranny of the Majority).
> 
> AGAIN, I cannot answer your question.  Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.
> 
> And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.
Click to expand...






The arab muslims were tooling up ready for a fight and started to MASS MURDER Jews as far back as 1929.

They have the same rights as Israel, but the HoAP want to have more rights and more land and more MASS MURDERS.

They have the same rights as Israel, but the HoAP want more rights and more land and more JEWISH SLAVES

They have the same right as Israel, but the HoAP want more rights to MASS MURDER, RAPE and PILLAGE without getting shot at.

Those are the facts and can be seen in their many charters and proclamations issued by the HoAP in regards to Israel and MASS MURDER.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I hate to tell you this.



P F Tinmore said:


> Several post war agreements set Palestine's international borders that finalized by the Treaty of Lausanne when all of the newly created states were release from Ottoman rule.


*(COMMENT)*

In none of the five parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine even mentioned once, let alone set its borders.

_*SOURCES:*_

#1  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923

#2  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923

#3  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923​
Palestine was an undefined and unincorporated administrative region.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...
> 
> The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed _(very much - for what it is)_, although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
Click to expand...




 And what about before the Irgun then when arab hostiles rioted and MASS MURDERED many Jews, and not a European in sight. When they ethnically cleansed Hebron of all of its Jews and stole the land and property owned by the Jews. The same arab hostiles that later started running Jews of their land and property in the lead up to the 1948 declaration of independence, assisted by foreign arab insurgents.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Just a minor "timeline" reminder.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Palestinian Black Hand was *founded in 1930 *and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.
> 
> The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine *between 1931* and 1948.
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...
> 
> Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers  was a given and justified fiat.
Click to expand...




 And you sound as if the MASS MURDER and OPPRESION of the Jews by the arabs was a given and justifiable fiat


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.
> 
> And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.
> 
> The external interference was on the part of the Arab League.  There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description.  There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State.  The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not say that.  In fact I argue for it.  Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves.  They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution.  The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it.  They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy.  The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate.  This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.
> 
> This is not self defense.  The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks.  The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!
> 
> How about making a serious attempt at addressing my post.
Click to expand...




 HE HAS EVERY TIME it is just that you refuse to accept the truth in regards to JEWISH/ISREALI rights


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced  sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...
> 
> Nice cup of English Tea...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.
Click to expand...




 Would those invaders also include the many hundred of thousands arab insurgents that flocked to the area between 1919 and 1948


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Would those invaders also include the many hundred of thousands arab insurgents that flocked to the area between 1919 and 1948



According to immigration records at the time...







You are full of shit!


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> *Or turning it round who gave the HoAP muslims the right to decide the Jews path*
> 
> *But they are not trying to do that, so why do you keep pushing this strawman argument?*
> 
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> *In August 2005 Israel completely withdrew from gaza and did not impose any restrictions or blockades until 2008, So were was the control of what went in or out other than that accorded to all nations under International law. How old are you and what grade did you stop your schooling, You sound like a 9 year old*
> 
> *They might of withdrawn physically from the area, but they never withdrew control over the area, nor did they stop conducting air raids and targeted assassinations?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> *Yes goods like grad rockets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, H.E, Nitrates and other weapons to be used to target Israel children. But then you NAZI JEW HATING SHIT don't believe that the JOOOOS should be allowed to defend themselves from attack do you. Is it any of your business who the UK vote for, and if they want to withdraw from the EU, because your tame neo Marxist chimp thinks it is. *
> 
> *Maybe they're weapons to be used to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.  Did you ever think of that?  As far as your UK comment, I don't see WTF that has to do with this conversation?  No only do you make up shit, it's stupid shit to boot!*
> 
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*
> *Personally, I'd rather buy American.*
> 
> *Then stop attacking the Jews because you are a NAZI JEW HATER because they keep 30% of American defence workers in employment. And going on the quality of the US goods I have then you are easily pleased with trash quality. Who wants a car that wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti*



*You tell me to "stop attacking the Jews", then you turn right around and attack Americans!  What a fucking hypocrite, you are.* 




Phoenall said:


> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*
> 
> * Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*
> 
> *Do I need to highlight all your LIES and PROFANITIES above, in the UK we say that this is a lack of education and is how low life's and crack whores talk.*



*The "LIES" you need to prove, the profanity is there for emphasis and has nothing to do with what I know, or don't know.*


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would those invaders also include the many hundred of thousands arab insurgents that flocked to the area between 1919 and 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to immigration records at the time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit!
Click to expand...




 Now lets see the figures from 1850 to 1920  and them from 1930 to 1948.

 Or are you the one who is full of shit..................


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> *Or turning it round who gave the HoAP muslims the right to decide the Jews path*
> 
> *But they are not trying to do that, so why do you keep pushing this strawman argument?*
> 
> 
> * Bullshit they want to wipe out every Jew in the M.E and destroy Israel. It is entrenched in every single charter the HoAP have*
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> *In August 2005 Israel completely withdrew from gaza and did not impose any restrictions or blockades until 2008, So were was the control of what went in or out other than that accorded to all nations under International law. How old are you and what grade did you stop your schooling, You sound like a 9 year old*
> 
> *They might of withdrawn physically from the area, but they never withdrew control over the area, nor did they stop conducting air raids and targeted assassinations?*
> 
> *They withdrew completely and gave up all control other than that accorded to all Nations under International law. The did not send any planes over gaza, they did not fire any weapons into gaza and they did not assassinate anyone in gaza. So why did the HoAP increase the rate of fire and severity of attacks on Israeli civilians, mostly children ?*
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> *Yes goods like grad rockets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, H.E, Nitrates and other weapons to be used to target Israel children. But then you NAZI JEW HATING SHIT don't believe that the JOOOOS should be allowed to defend themselves from attack do you. Is it any of your business who the UK vote for, and if they want to withdraw from the EU, because your tame neo Marxist chimp thinks it is. *
> 
> *Maybe they're weapons to be used to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.  Did you ever think of that?  As far as your UK comment, I don't see WTF that has to do with this conversation?  No only do you make up shit, it's stupid shit to boot!*
> 
> *What Israeli aggression as it is the HoAP that are the aggressors, the Israelis just respond to the constant rocket attacks. Take the ceasefire that hamas broke when they allowed rockets to be fired into Israel  in the vicinity of the Funeral. Was Israel supposed to just sit back and do nothing to safeguard the foreign dignitaries attending the Funeral. It's you that is full of shit, islamonazi shit at that *
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*
> *Personally, I'd rather buy American.*
> 
> *Then stop attacking the Jews because you are a NAZI JEW HATER because they keep 30% of American defence workers in employment. And going on the quality of the US goods I have then you are easily pleased with trash quality. Who wants a car that wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You tell me to "stop attacking the Jews", then you turn right around and attack Americans!  What a fucking hypocrite, you are.*
> 
> *Get it right I attack idiotic Americans like you who don't know what time it is. Who elect a neo Marxist to lead their country and fawn all over him when he bows to a muslim. *
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*
> 
> * Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*
> 
> *Do I need to highlight all your LIES and PROFANITIES above, in the UK we say that this is a lack of education and is how low life's and crack whores talk.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The "LIES" you need to prove, the profanity is there for emphasis and has nothing to do with what I know, or don't know.*
Click to expand...




* The LIES are self evident as you LIE for the muslims all the time, the profanities are there because you don't have the intelligence to come up with a reasoned argument. So all in all a complete idiot that has been brainwashed by a neo Marxist *


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I hate to tell you this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several post war agreements set Palestine's international borders that finalized by the Treaty of Lausanne when all of the newly created states were release from Ottoman rule.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In none of the five parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine even mentioned once, let alone set its borders.
> 
> _*SOURCES:*_
> 
> #1  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #2  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #3  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923​
> Palestine was an undefined and unincorporated administrative region.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It did not need to be mentioned. That is an irrelevant statement.

It was undefined for a time but that changed. That is an irrelevant statement.

Your response did not address my post.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I hate to tell you this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several post war agreements set Palestine's international borders that finalized by the Treaty of Lausanne when all of the newly created states were release from Ottoman rule.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In none of the five parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine even mentioned once, let alone set its borders.
> 
> _*SOURCES:*_
> 
> #1  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #2  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #3  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923​
> Palestine was an undefined and unincorporated administrative region.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did not need to be mentioned. That is an irrelevant statement.
> 
> It was undefined for a time but that changed. That is an irrelevant statement.
> 
> Your response did not address my post.
Click to expand...




 So if it isn't mentioned then why do you use it as evidence of the International borders of Palestine.  

They are still undefined as the present government refuses to accept the borders negotiated by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

 It did , but because it blows your argument apart you don't want to recognise it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I hate to tell you this.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In none of the five parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine even mentioned once, let alone set its borders.
> 
> _*SOURCES:*_
> 
> #1  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #2  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #3  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923​
> Palestine was an undefined and unincorporated administrative region.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not need to be mentioned. That is an irrelevant statement.
> 
> It was undefined for a time but that changed. That is an irrelevant statement.
> 
> Your response did not address my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if it isn't mentioned then why do you use it as evidence of the International borders of Palestine.
> 
> They are still undefined as the present government refuses to accept the borders negotiated by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> It did , but because it blows your argument apart you don't want to recognise it.
Click to expand...


The borders, nationality, and citizenship of Palestine were all set up while it was still under the Ottoman Empire. It was all de facto until the legal end of the Empire at the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne then they became de jure.


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, _et al,_

No, not at all.



Phoenall said:


> And you sound as if the MASS MURDER and OPPRESSION of the Jews by the arabs was a given and justifiable fiat


*(COMMENT)*

BUT, early on in the Administration of the Mandate, it became obvious that the two cultures were not compatible; an unexpected discovery not envisioned by the Allied Powers.  The Mandatory termed it, later on, as an "unreconcilable difference."

At the turn into the 20th Century, there were very few senior officials and diplomats that understood the Arab, the connection to Islam, and the cultural elements that resisted social diversity within the region.  Had that been widely understood, it might have made a difference in the approach.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is another one of those things that I don't see any evidence.



P F Tinmore said:


> The borders, nationality, and citizenship of Palestine were all set up while it was still under the Ottoman Empire. It was all de facto until the legal end of the Empire at the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne then they became de jure.


*(COMMENT)*

How do you derive this.  Clearly, in 1920, Palestine was undefined in the Treaty of Sevres.  There was no precursor government established by the Ottoman or Turkish governments.  There was no mention of Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne, or the autonomy of self-governance of any of the Mandate Territories in the Middle East. 

If anyone is grasping at straws, it is not me.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, _et al,_
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you sound as if the MASS MURDER and OPPRESSION of the Jews by the arabs was a given and justifiable fiat
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> BUT, early on in the Administration of the Mandate, it became obvious that the two cultures were not compatible; an unexpected discovery not envisioned by the Allied Powers.  The Mandatory termed it, later on, as an "unreconcilable difference."
> 
> At the turn into the 20th Century, there were very few senior officials and diplomats that understood the Arab, the connection to Islam, and the cultural elements that resisted social diversity within the region.  Had that been widely understood, it might have made a difference in the approach.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


They did not see that their stupid plan was going to be a hundred year long disaster?

What planet were they on?


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Again with the misunderstanding of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Did I say that?  I think not.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UNPC Implemented the November 1947 Resolution and declared independence with there full cooperation, at the completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> No Force required.  Cooperation and coordination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UNPC was to define the borders between the two states. When did that happen?
> 
> When did the UNPC transfer land to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is not a real-estate transaction for property ownership.  It is an establishment of sovereignty.  The borders were accepted as in Part II, Section B, Boundaries - as outlined in Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> The establishment of a Sovereign State is not about land ownership (a civil liberty).  You can go back through the records, you will not find any of the Arab States with a deed to the property for their respective states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 *has been implemented*."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You have explained this to Tinmore, and backed up your statements with links. Yet he still asks the same crap over and over. Why do you bother, he is just playing with your head


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where is Israel's land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
Click to expand...


How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.

Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is another one of those things that I don't see any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The borders, nationality, and citizenship of Palestine were all set up while it was still under the Ottoman Empire. It was all de facto until the legal end of the Empire at the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne then they became de jure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How do you derive this.  Clearly, in 1920, Palestine was undefined in the Treaty of Sevres.  There was no precursor government established by the Ottoman or Turkish governments.  There was no mention of Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne, or the autonomy of self-governance of any of the Mandate Territories in the Middle East.
> 
> If anyone is grasping at straws, it is not me.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Of course you don't see any evidence. You won't find it in Israeli propaganda.



> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, your lies and fabrication of history might pass with some people, but Rocco knows his stuff.

Why can't you admit you're wrong?? Your constant denial and inability to accept FACTS is immature and childish.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
Click to expand...


The partition plan flopped. It didn't happen.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I hate to tell you this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several post war agreements set Palestine's international borders that finalized by the Treaty of Lausanne when all of the newly created states were release from Ottoman rule.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In none of the five parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine even mentioned once, let alone set its borders.
> 
> _*SOURCES:*_
> 
> #1  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #2  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923
> 
> #3  TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923​
> Palestine was an undefined and unincorporated administrative region.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did not need to be mentioned. That is an irrelevant statement.
> 
> It was undefined for a time but that changed. That is an irrelevant statement.
> 
> Your response did not address my post.
Click to expand...


This was your post:

*Several post war agreements set Palestine's international borders that finalized by the Treaty of Lausanne when all of the newly created states were release from Ottoman rule.*

This was Roccos response:

*In none of the five parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine even mentioned once, let alone set its borders.

SOURCES:

    #1 TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923

    #2 TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923

    #3 TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923

Palestine was an undefined and unincorporated administrative region.*

And you say he DIDN'T address your post??
Who are you trying to fool ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
Click to expand...


*ARTICLE 1*

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. 

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Click to expand...


And once again, you post something that has NOTHING TO DO with my question.

Try again


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, you post something that has NOTHING TO DO with my question.
> 
> Try again
Click to expand...


Where is Israel's defined territory?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Again, this is an understanding over time.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you sound as if the MASS MURDER and OPPRESSION of the Jews by the arabs was a given and justifiable fiat
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> BUT, early on in the Administration of the Mandate, it became obvious that the two cultures were not compatible; an unexpected discovery not envisioned by the Allied Powers.  The Mandatory termed it, later on, as an "unreconcilable difference."
> 
> At the turn into the 20th Century, there were very few senior officials and diplomats that understood the Arab, the connection to Islam, and the cultural elements that resisted social diversity within the region.  Had that been widely understood, it might have made a difference in the approach.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not see that their stupid plan was going to be a hundred year long disaster?
> 
> What planet were they on?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Partition Plan was not even a consideration in the 1920's when the Mandate came into effect.  It was just the Balfour Declaration aims that were on the table.

There was a general consensus that, given time, the two cultures, each with nationalistic aspirations, would be civilized enough to overcome their differences.  The development of the Palestinian Black Hand _(an Arab Killing Machine with Islamic fundamentalism behind it)_ partly countered by the Haganah _[local defense watch at Kibbutz level govern by policy of havlagah (restraint)]_ and later shed the splinter groups of Irgun and Lehi _(each more offensive oriented than it predecessor)_, flared-up at a staggering rate.

However, it was the post-War (II) Palestine that really demonstrated the the extent to which the level of violence was to expand.  And after what the Jewish Community had just gone through in Europe, when Isa Nakhleh (Arab Higher Committee) threatened a second Holocaust in 1948 _("The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child.")_ the defenses of the Jewish People exploded in a flash of lightening.  There was no coming back; the Jewish saw this as a decisive moment in the survival of their culture; live or die at the hands of the Arab.

Each side believed they had a perfect justification for the conflict.  In another Century, maybe we'll know.  

Today, the Arab Palestinian claims they are the victim of Apartheid, Genocide, Occupation and State terrorism.  But remember the threat the sequence of events.

WWII and Holocaust ends 1945: 6 Million Jews perish.
Palestine 1948:  Then the AHC makes the Solemn oath: "first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
If for no other cause, --- what would you expect the outcome to be?

Did the Hostile Arab Palestinian exercise sound judgment and implement actions toward a peaceful solution?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you post something that has NOTHING TO DO with my question.
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
Click to expand...


Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory

BTW, d) is very interesting:
*capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

How can this be true?



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course you don't see any evidence. You won't find it in Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Well, you'll just have to show me in the Treaty where Palestine is "regularized;" and what that means.

Like I said, Palestine is not even mentioned in the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The partition plan flopped. It didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Read my post again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Again, this is an understanding over time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall,
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> BUT, early on in the Administration of the Mandate, it became obvious that the two cultures were not compatible; an unexpected discovery not envisioned by the Allied Powers.  The Mandatory termed it, later on, as an "unreconcilable difference."
> 
> At the turn into the 20th Century, there were very few senior officials and diplomats that understood the Arab, the connection to Islam, and the cultural elements that resisted social diversity within the region.  Had that been widely understood, it might have made a difference in the approach.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not see that their stupid plan was going to be a hundred year long disaster?
> 
> What planet were they on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Partition Plan was not even a consideration in the 1920's when the Mandate came into effect.  It was just the Balfour Declaration aims that were on the table.
> 
> There was a general consensus that, given time, the two cultures, each with nationalistic aspirations, would be civilized enough to overcome their differences.  The development of the Palestinian Black Hand _(an Arab Killing Machine with Islamic fundamentalism behind it)_ partly countered by the Haganah _[local defense watch at Kibbutz level govern by policy of havlagah (restraint)]_ and later shed the splinter groups of Irgun and Lehi _(each more offensive oriented than it predecessor)_, flared-up at a staggering rate.
> 
> However, it was the post-War (II) Palestine that really demonstrated the the extent to which the level of violence was to expand.  And after what the Jewish Community had just gone through in Europe, when Isa Nakhleh (Arab Higher Committee) threatened a second Holocaust in 1948 _("The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child.")_ the defenses of the Jewish People exploded in a flash of lightening.  There was no coming back; the Jewish saw this as a decisive moment in the survival of their culture; live or die at the hands of the Arab.
> 
> Each side believed they had a perfect justification for the conflict.  In another Century, maybe we'll know.
> 
> Today, the Arab Palestinian claims they are the victim of Apartheid, Genocide, Occupation and State terrorism.  But remember the threat the sequence of events.
> 
> WWII and Holocaust ends 1945: 6 Million Jews perish.
> Palestine 1948:  Then the AHC makes the Solemn oath: "first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
> If for no other cause, --- what would you expect the outcome to be?
> 
> Did the Hostile Arab Palestinian exercise sound judgment and implement actions toward a peaceful solution?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> But remember the threat the sequence of events.



Indeed, it started when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves ever since.

You always dance around that fact.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is nonsense.  While it sets a precedence, it is not a Treaty to which anyone in the Middle East is a signatory.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Click to expand...

*(QUESTION)*

a ) a permanent population;

Maybe.  It has a high content of refugee (non-permanent).
b ) a defined territory; 

No boundaries and no treaty recognized borders.  As you always as me, where is the deed, the transfer of the territory.  (I can show you mine.)
c ) government; and

Maybe.  Up for debate!
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. 

We argued about that all last night.  You claim that PM Abbas has no standing and that HAMAS is the legal government.

This is nonsense!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Again, this is an understanding over time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not see that their stupid plan was going to be a hundred year long disaster?
> 
> What planet were they on?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Partition Plan was not even a consideration in the 1920's when the Mandate came into effect.  It was just the Balfour Declaration aims that were on the table.
> 
> There was a general consensus that, given time, the two cultures, each with nationalistic aspirations, would be civilized enough to overcome their differences.  The development of the Palestinian Black Hand _(an Arab Killing Machine with Islamic fundamentalism behind it)_ partly countered by the Haganah _[local defense watch at Kibbutz level govern by policy of havlagah (restraint)]_ and later shed the splinter groups of Irgun and Lehi _(each more offensive oriented than it predecessor)_, flared-up at a staggering rate.
> 
> However, it was the post-War (II) Palestine that really demonstrated the the extent to which the level of violence was to expand.  And after what the Jewish Community had just gone through in Europe, when Isa Nakhleh (Arab Higher Committee) threatened a second Holocaust in 1948 _("The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child.")_ the defenses of the Jewish People exploded in a flash of lightening.  There was no coming back; the Jewish saw this as a decisive moment in the survival of their culture; live or die at the hands of the Arab.
> 
> Each side believed they had a perfect justification for the conflict.  In another Century, maybe we'll know.
> 
> Today, the Arab Palestinian claims they are the victim of Apartheid, Genocide, Occupation and State terrorism.  But remember the threat the sequence of events.
> 
> WWII and Holocaust ends 1945: 6 Million Jews perish.
> Palestine 1948:  Then the AHC makes the Solemn oath: "first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
> If for no other cause, --- what would you expect the outcome to be?
> 
> Did the Hostile Arab Palestinian exercise sound judgment and implement actions toward a peaceful solution?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember the threat the sequence of events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it started when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves ever since.
> 
> You always dance around that fact.
Click to expand...


LOL ! You say this as if it has any merit to what we are discussing.

Quite the opposite, it's actually a sign of desperation


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you post something that has NOTHING TO DO with my question.
> 
> Try again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
Click to expand...


Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about 1948. Show me that their declaration of independence was recognized. 
BTW, didn't they declare independence on territory that Israel already declared independence on? Yes, they did, making it null !

The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, THAT was the one that was recognized. This is yet another issue which has been explained to you in detail, that you wish to ignore.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine*

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] with limited recognition in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about 1948. Show me that their declaration of independence was recognized.
> BTW, didn't they declare independence on territory that Israel already declared independence on? Yes, they did, making it null !
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, THAT was the one that was recognized. This is yet another issue which has been explained to you in detail, that you wish to ignore.
> 
> *State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] with limited recognition in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers
Click to expand...




> *ARTICLE 3*
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933



Palestine was recognized by five other states but that really doesn't matter.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about 1948. Show me that their declaration of independence was recognized.
> BTW, didn't they declare independence on territory that Israel already declared independence on? Yes, they did, making it null !
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, THAT was the one that was recognized. This is yet another issue which has been explained to you in detail, that you wish to ignore.
> 
> *State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] with limited recognition in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states but that really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Ok, but this doesn't change the FACT that the Declaration of independence of Palestine that was official and recognized was in 1988, as seen in my post


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about 1948. Show me that their declaration of independence was recognized.
> BTW, didn't they declare independence on territory that Israel already declared independence on? Yes, they did, making it null !
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, THAT was the one that was recognized. This is yet another issue which has been explained to you in detail, that you wish to ignore.
> 
> *State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] with limited recognition in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states but that really doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but this doesn't change the FACT that the Declaration of independence of Palestine that was official and recognized was in 1988, as seen in my post
Click to expand...


Recognition is political. It really doesn't matter.

Israel still does not recognize Palestine. It is a political not legal position.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I have to laugh at this.  Didn't you just call these guys foreigners?



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Interestingly enough, when you go the The League of Arab States - AL-BAB Web Site (AL-BAB: an open door to the Arab world), and query Palestine and click on "Country map Large (819k)" you get:




The 1974 inclusion was an outcome of the 7th Arab Summit meeting in Rabat, which I discussed prior.  And it also says that the "PLO as sole representative of the Palestinians."  The PLO says that Palestine became independent in November 1988 and recognizes the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II).

While it is apparently true that Sir Henry MacMahon once promised all of Palestine to the Sharif of Mecca, for his son, the deal was trimmed down and they got two Kingdoms (Jordan and Iraq).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, is that a 1974 map of Israel ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to laugh at this.  Didn't you just call these guys foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Interestingly enough, when you go the The League of Arab States - AL-BAB Web Site (AL-BAB: an open door to the Arab world), and query Palestine and click on "Country map Large (819k)" you get:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1974 inclusion was an outcome of the 7th Arab Summit meeting in Rabat, which I discussed prior.  And it also says that the "PLO as sole representative of the Palestinians."  The PLO says that Palestine became independent in November 1988 and recognizes the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> While it is apparently true that Sir Henry MacMahon once promised all of Palestine to the Sharif of Mecca, for his son, the deal was trimmed down and they got two Kingdoms (Jordan and Iraq).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


That is a University of Texas map.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to laugh at this.  Didn't you just call these guys foreigners?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Interestingly enough, when you go the The League of Arab States - AL-BAB Web Site (AL-BAB: an open door to the Arab world), and query Palestine and click on "Country map Large (819k)" you get:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1974 inclusion was an outcome of the 7th Arab Summit meeting in Rabat, which I discussed prior.  And it also says that the "PLO as sole representative of the Palestinians."  The PLO says that Palestine became independent in November 1988 and recognizes the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> While it is apparently true that Sir Henry MacMahon once promised all of Palestine to the Sharif of Mecca, for his son, the deal was trimmed down and they got two Kingdoms (Jordan and Iraq).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a University of Texas map.
Click to expand...


Your point being ??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to laugh at this.  Didn't you just call these guys foreigners?
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Interestingly enough, when you go the The League of Arab States - AL-BAB Web Site (AL-BAB: an open door to the Arab world), and query Palestine and click on "Country map Large (819k)" you get:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1974 inclusion was an outcome of the 7th Arab Summit meeting in Rabat, which I discussed prior.  And it also says that the "PLO as sole representative of the Palestinians."  The PLO says that Palestine became independent in November 1988 and recognizes the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II).
> 
> While it is apparently true that Sir Henry MacMahon once promised all of Palestine to the Sharif of Mecca, for his son, the deal was trimmed down and they got two Kingdoms (Jordan and Iraq).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a University of Texas map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point being ??
Click to expand...


I thought it was supposed to be an Arab League map.

My bad.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a University of Texas map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was supposed to be an Arab League map.
> 
> My bad.
Click to expand...


How would the Arab League map differ in your opinion ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was supposed to be an Arab League map.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the Arab League map differ in your opinion ?
Click to expand...


Arab maps regularly do not include the armistice lines.


----------



## toastman

Interesting. I was not aware of that


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, _et al,_
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you sound as if the MASS MURDER and OPPRESSION of the Jews by the arabs was a given and justifiable fiat
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> BUT, early on in the Administration of the Mandate, it became obvious that the two cultures were not compatible; an unexpected discovery not envisioned by the Allied Powers.  The Mandatory termed it, later on, as an "unreconcilable difference."
> 
> At the turn into the 20th Century, there were very few senior officials and diplomats that understood the Arab, the connection to Islam, and the cultural elements that resisted social diversity within the region.  Had that been widely understood, it might have made a difference in the approach.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not see that their stupid plan was going to be a hundred year long disaster?
> 
> What planet were they on?
Click to expand...




 Just what is it you don't understand about the muslim mindset. They are commanded to kill all the Jews by their 7c religion and they try to carry out those commands. They see the world as theirs promised to them by their god, and they will take it any way they can. Once land has been taken then it is theirs for ever, even if they are beaten and run away the land is still theirs. Spain is still theirs and no amount of UN involvement will change their views on this, same with Israel it theirs stolen from all its other owners over the last 1400 years. That is how they exist in the modern world, and why those with sense say that they are not yet capable of living in the civilised world. The plan was sound, and in any other part of the world would have worked and been of benefit to all parties. But the HoAP have had 1400 years of hatred to live with and they found it very easy to turn against the Jews and attempt genocide. 
 What planet were they on............why planet islam of course which is their ultimate goal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Interesting. I was not aware of that



Go to the PMW website. They bitch about that all the time.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I was not aware of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the PMW website. They bitch about that all the time.
Click to expand...


Where? Show me


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about 1948. Show me that their declaration of independence was recognized.
> BTW, didn't they declare independence on territory that Israel already declared independence on? Yes, they did, making it null !
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, THAT was the one that was recognized. This is yet another issue which has been explained to you in detail, that you wish to ignore.
> 
> *State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] with limited recognition in the Levant that *declared independence on 15 November 1988* by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> 
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states but that really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...





Yet was not recognised by the UN until last year, which tells its own story. Just as Israel being recognised by the UN within minutes of having declared itself a nation on the land bequeathed to it by the Mandate and UN.  Just as Jordan was also created along with Syria and Iraq.

The 5 other states did not have the power to designate Palestine as a state and had to wait for UN approval before doing so. This came about in 2012 when they were granted NON MEMBER observer status, the relevant part is highlighted so you cant twist it round and say they are full members of the UN.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I was not aware of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the PMW website. They bitch about that all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? Show me
Click to expand...


Palestinian maps erase Israel | PMW


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states but that really doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but this doesn't change the FACT that the Declaration of independence of Palestine that was official and recognized was in 1988, as seen in my post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognition is political. It really doesn't matter.
> 
> Israel still does not recognize Palestine. It is a political not legal position.
Click to expand...




 Wrong as Israel recognised the rights of Palestine  as this shows

 In 1993, in the Oslo Accords, Israel acknowledged the PLO negotiating team as "representing the Palestinian people", in return for the PLO recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace, acceptance of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and its rejection of "violence and terrorism".[23] As a result, in 1994 the PLO established the Palestinian National Authority (PNA or PA) territorial administration, that exercises some governmental functions[iii] in parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 And as this shows Palestine still refuses to recognise Israel

 Abbas: We won't recognize Israel as Jewish state


Palestinian leader defiant ahead of UN statehood bid, urges international community to back off; 'Dont order us to recognize Jewish state,' he says. Foreign Minister says world must tell Abbas state cannot come at Israel's expense


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the PMW website. They bitch about that all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Show me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinian maps erase Israel | PMW
Click to expand...


Where does it show them complaining about there being no cease fire lines?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes it is.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is a University of Texas map.


*(COMMENT)*

But it is still the one the Arab League uses on their site.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is another one of those things that I don't see any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The borders, nationality, and citizenship of Palestine were all set up while it was still under the Ottoman Empire. It was all de facto until the legal end of the Empire at the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne then they became de jure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> How do you derive this.  Clearly, in 1920, Palestine was undefined in the Treaty of Sevres.  There was no precursor government established by the Ottoman or Turkish governments.  There was no mention of Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne, or the autonomy of self-governance of any of the Mandate Territories in the Middle East.
> 
> If anyone is grasping at straws, it is not me.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't see any evidence. You won't find it in Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Wrong again as the author claims that the details are present in the Treaty of Lausanne, which clearly says no such thing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing Israel acquiring any land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that acquiring land has nothing to do with this. He explained it VERY CLEARLY that the Mandate allowed Israel to declare independence in the territory allotted to her in the partition plan.
> You know he's right, but you're just playing games right now.
> 
> Where did YOU read that Israel had to acquire land for it to declare independence ??? Link???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The partition plan flopped. It didn't happen.
Click to expand...





Only for the HoAP who wanted everything as commanded in the Koran, now they want to turn the clocks back 65 years and have another go.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you post something that has NOTHING TO DO with my question.
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
Click to expand...



UN res 181 partition plan sets out the starting point for the borders, all there in black and white. Further to this the UN res 242 sets out the need for negotiations to allow for mutual agreement of future borders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Again, this is an understanding over time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not see that their stupid plan was going to be a hundred year long disaster?
> 
> What planet were they on?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Partition Plan was not even a consideration in the 1920's when the Mandate came into effect.  It was just the Balfour Declaration aims that were on the table.
> 
> There was a general consensus that, given time, the two cultures, each with nationalistic aspirations, would be civilized enough to overcome their differences.  The development of the Palestinian Black Hand _(an Arab Killing Machine with Islamic fundamentalism behind it)_ partly countered by the Haganah _[local defense watch at Kibbutz level govern by policy of havlagah (restraint)]_ and later shed the splinter groups of Irgun and Lehi _(each more offensive oriented than it predecessor)_, flared-up at a staggering rate.
> 
> However, it was the post-War (II) Palestine that really demonstrated the the extent to which the level of violence was to expand.  And after what the Jewish Community had just gone through in Europe, when Isa Nakhleh (Arab Higher Committee) threatened a second Holocaust in 1948 _("The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child.")_ the defenses of the Jewish People exploded in a flash of lightening.  There was no coming back; the Jewish saw this as a decisive moment in the survival of their culture; live or die at the hands of the Arab.
> 
> Each side believed they had a perfect justification for the conflict.  In another Century, maybe we'll know.
> 
> Today, the Arab Palestinian claims they are the victim of Apartheid, Genocide, Occupation and State terrorism.  But remember the threat the sequence of events.
> 
> WWII and Holocaust ends 1945: 6 Million Jews perish.
> Palestine 1948:  Then the AHC makes the Solemn oath: "first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
> If for no other cause, --- what would you expect the outcome to be?
> 
> Did the Hostile Arab Palestinian exercise sound judgment and implement actions toward a peaceful solution?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember the threat the sequence of events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it started when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country.
> 
> The Palestinians have been defending themselves ever since.
> 
> You always dance around that fact.
Click to expand...




 So the genocide of the Jewish tribe by Mohamed had nothing to do with the command to kill all the Jews written into the Koran.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
Click to expand...




 But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
Click to expand...


I know I have said this before: absence a peace treaty signed by Israel and Palestine the UN recognizes the 67 armistice lines as their borders.

That is current International Law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco answered that question with the map he posted. Notice the INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
> How can a country sign a treaty that gives it international borders with another country, and NOT have defined territory
> 
> BTW, d) is very interesting:
> *capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Kind of like 'Palestine'. Thanks for proving my point that Palestine was not a country in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
Click to expand...


Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.

The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not s state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
Click to expand...


Your post is based o false premise


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not s state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is based o false premise
Click to expand...


Please elaborate.


----------



## toastman

You brought up Switzerland becoming part of the U.N, which really doesn't have much to do with his post. No one said that you needed to become a member of the U.N to become a state

You post about Switzerland and its recognition as if it is similar with Palestine's case


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I agree here.



P F Tinmore said:


> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.


*(COMMENT)*

The UN is not actually a governing body - but an organization consisting of independent states, and doesn't actually have the inherent authority to "recognize" a State.  Recognition is something exchanged between sovereign nations.  UN recognition is a misnomer.  In the 4-step application process, the General Assembly (upon favorable recommendation of the Security Council) vote to admit a state for membership.  It is the individual nations that either grant or withhold recognition.

International Legitimacy is a very slippery animal.  Most international law does not generally evaluate how a national government is formed; it is on a case-by-case basis by each nation as to what they, given what they know and the circumstance as they see them, determine what they derive as legitimate or not.  There is no magic formula and no specific definition.  What one nation may adjudge as legitimate, others may disagree.

It is very difficult to say, one nation is illegitimate, no matter how it is formed.  There are simply no strict rules; most references represent a precedence, but not a necessarily a requirement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you post something that has NOTHING TO DO with my question.
> 
> Try again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> UN res 181 partition plan sets out the starting point for the borders, all there in black and white. Further to this the UN res 242 sets out the need for negotiations to allow for mutual agreement of future borders.
Click to expand...


UN res 181 partition plan flopped. British (the mandate) refused to implement the resolution without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and offered an alternate plan.

The UN defined no borders, transferred no land, and created no states.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN res 181 partition plan sets out the starting point for the borders, all there in black and white. Further to this the UN res 242 sets out the need for negotiations to allow for mutual agreement of future borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN res 181 partition plan flopped. British (the mandate) refused to implement the resolution without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and offered an alternate plan.
> 
> The UN defined no borders, transferred no land, and created no states.
Click to expand...


Didn't the Palestinians declare Independence in 1988 based on Resolution 181?


----------



## toastman

Yup, it was:

*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947*

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

" following upon UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, *yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty*."

Document: Palestinian Declaration of Independence, 15 Nov 1988



This site says the same thing:

http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/12353


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You have to deconstruct this.



P F Tinmore said:


> UN res 181 partition plan flopped.


*(COMMENT)*

Objectively speaking, the 3-Part Plan was one-third implemented.  In school, we would say 33% success.  It is very subjective to say it was a flop; but I certainly agree that it could have had a better outcome.



P F Tinmore said:


> British (the mandate) refused to implement the resolution without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, not exactly true.  While the UK Mandatory did not implement, the UNPC did, to the 33% mark.  The UNPC was the action agent for the UN GA and the UNSC.  It was the successor government.




P F Tinmore said:


> The US withdrew its support and offered an alternate plan.


*(COMMENT)*

What the US said and what it actually did, was two different things.  Upon receipt of the Declaration of Independence, the US was the very first nation to grant recognition.  Currently, about 80% of the UN member nations recognize the State of Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> The UN defined no borders, transferred no land, and created no states.


*(COMMENT)*

That is right, the UN defined no borders and transferred no land.  Why? Because that is not how it is done.  The state that declares independence identified the territory is it declaring independence over.  In the case of Israel, clearly they indicated they were declaring independence IAW the GA/RES/181(II), which included a verbal description and a Map.

In point of fact, this is very similar to what the 5-Arab League States the immediately attacked did.  Nearly all the borders in the Region are straight-line surveys by the Allied Powers, from Persia westward to the Mediterranean Sea. 

I (personally) don't recognize the State of Palestine.  However, it has, based on the 1988 Declaration, about 70% of the UN membership which has given recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Now lets see the figures from 1850 to 1920  and them from 1930 to 1948.
> 
> Or are you the one who is full of shit..................


Well, according to the UN...



> _During the 25 years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewry. Over this period *the Jewish population of Palestine, composed principally of immigrants, increased from* *less than 10 per cent in 1917 to over 30 per cent in 1947*._


...the only large scale migration into Palestine, was from the jews.

Arabs were already there!

So you're the one who's full of shit.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> *Or turning it round who gave the HoAP muslims the right to decide the Jews path*
> 
> *But they are not trying to do that, so why do you keep pushing this strawman argument?*
> 
> * Bullshit they want to wipe out every Jew in the M.E and destroy Israel. It is entrenched in every single charter the HoAP have*
> 
> *Their leaders have already stated they're willing to accept a two-state solution, so your "charter" comment is full of shit!*
> 
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> *In August 2005 Israel completely withdrew from gaza and did not impose any restrictions or blockades until 2008, So were was the control of what went in or out other than that accorded to all nations under International law. How old are you and what grade did you stop your schooling, You sound like a 9 year old*
> 
> *They might of withdrawn physically from the area, but they never withdrew control over the area, nor did they stop conducting air raids and targeted assassinations?*
> 
> *They withdrew completely and gave up all control other than that accorded to all Nations under International law. The did not send any planes over gaza, they did not fire any weapons into gaza and they did not assassinate anyone in gaza. So why did the HoAP increase the rate of fire and severity of attacks on Israeli civilians, mostly children ?*
> 
> *Well, according to the UN...*
> 
> 
> 
> _* In 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and troops from Gaza while retaining control over its borders, seashore and airspace.*_
> 
> 
> 
> *...they didn't give up control of Gaza and once again, you are full of shit.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> *Yes goods like grad rockets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, H.E, Nitrates and other weapons to be used to target Israel children. But then you NAZI JEW HATING SHIT don't believe that the JOOOOS should be allowed to defend themselves from attack do you. Is it any of your business who the UK vote for, and if they want to withdraw from the EU, because your tame neo Marxist chimp thinks it is. *
> 
> *Maybe they're weapons to be used to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.  Did you ever think of that?  As far as your UK comment, I don't see WTF that has to do with this conversation?  No only do you make up shit, it's stupid shit to boot!*
> 
> *What Israeli aggression as it is the HoAP that are the aggressors, the Israelis just respond to the constant rocket attacks. Take the ceasefire that hamas broke when they allowed rockets to be fired into Israel  in the vicinity of the Funeral. Was Israel supposed to just sit back and do nothing to safeguard the foreign dignitaries attending the Funeral. It's you that is full of shit, islamonazi shit at that *
> 
> *A population under occupation is not the aggressor.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*
> *Personally, I'd rather buy American.*
> 
> *Then stop attacking the Jews because you are a NAZI JEW HATER because they keep 30% of American defence workers in employment. And going on the quality of the US goods I have then you are easily pleased with trash quality. Who wants a car that wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti*
> 
> *You tell me to "stop attacking the Jews", then you turn right around and attack Americans!  What a fucking hypocrite, you are.*
> 
> *Get it right I attack idiotic Americans like you who don't know what time it is. Who elect a neo Marxist to lead their country and fawn all over him when he bows to a muslim. *
> 
> *How could you have possibly been attacking me, when I've never made a car that "wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti"?*
Click to expand...





Phoenall said:


> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*
> 
> * Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*
> 
> *Do I need to highlight all your LIES and PROFANITIES above, in the UK we say that this is a lack of education and is how low life's and crack whores talk.*
> 
> *The "LIES" you need to prove, the profanity is there for emphasis and has nothing to do with what I know, or don't know.*
> 
> * The LIES are self evident as you LIE for the muslims all the time, the profanities are there because you don't have the intelligence to come up with a reasoned argument. So all in all a complete idiot that has been brainwashed by a neo Marxist *


*Sorry, you have to prove the LIES.  The only reason you say they're "self-evident", is because you cannot prove what you claim.

Que pasa, mutha?*


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I have said this before: absence a peace treaty signed by Israel and Palestine the UN recognizes the 67 armistice lines as their borders.
> 
> That is current International Law.
Click to expand...




 THERE WERE NEVER ANY '67 BORDERS THEY WERE THE CEASE FIRE LINES.  Read the various UN resolutions for clarification, try 242 which states that Israel has to negotiate its borders with its neighbours. Now this may sound harsh but at no time is Palestine mentioned just Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Israel has agreed borders with Egypt and Jordan, now it waits for Syria and Lebanon.

So how can the UN recognise something it says does not exist, this bullshit comes straight from pallywood


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
Click to expand...




 becoming a member of the UN is not a pre-requisite to being granted statehood, Israel was recognised as a state before it was admitted to the UN. The legitimacy of a state is down to recognition by the majority of other states, so Palestine has no legitimacy until 2012. So until you can produce unbiased sources of the formation of a legitimate state recognised under International Law then Palestine is just a mark on the map to show an area of interest, much like the Sahara or Gobi deserts.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN res 181 partition plan sets out the starting point for the borders, all there in black and white. Further to this the UN res 242 sets out the need for negotiations to allow for mutual agreement of future borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN res 181 partition plan flopped. British (the mandate) refused to implement the resolution without Palestinian approval. Neither would the Security Council. The US withdrew its support and offered an alternate plan.
> 
> The UN defined no borders, transferred no land, and created no states.
Click to expand...




 But under the original concept of 181 Israel declared itself a state before the British could do a thing, so the UN was forced to recognise Israel as a sovereign nation. The borders went undefined until the ceasefire lines of 1949 and were to be NEGOTIATED. Sorry to say but Israel was created on May 15 1948 by its unilateral declaration. The HoAP could not unilaterally declare that this was their nation 6 months later. Once you understand this the rest falls into place and you see the illegality of the HoAP claims.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets see the figures from 1850 to 1920  and them from 1930 to 1948.
> 
> Or are you the one who is full of shit..................
> 
> 
> 
> Well, according to the UN...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _During the 25 years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewry. Over this period *the Jewish population of Palestine, composed principally of immigrants, increased from* *less than 10 per cent in 1917 to over 30 per cent in 1947*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...the only large scale migration into Palestine, was from the jews.
> 
> Arabs were already there!
> 
> So you're the one who's full of shit.
Click to expand...




 Here you go then 

 This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states  constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel  by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943. 

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-*1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem

or this

http://www.aucegypt.edu/gapp/cmrs/documents/ismaillubbad.pdf

This

Substantial Immigration of Arab Migrant workers into Western Palestine from 1880-1948

While the "Jewish population" of Palestine was "predominantly immigrant in character," according to the 1931 census of Palestine[7] the Muslims were assumed to be "the natural population" -- "Not quite two percent of the Moslem population are immigrants." By 1945, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry would report that, although the Jewish population had risen from 84,000 in 1922 to 554,000, and "three-fourths of this ... [Jewish] expansion was accounted for by immigration," the Arabs had increased "by a greater number" than the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.
> 
> *Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose *
> 
> *First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?*
> 
> * It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.*
> 
> _*That's not the issue.  The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"*_
> 
> *Or turning it round who gave the HoAP muslims the right to decide the Jews path*
> 
> *But they are not trying to do that, so why do you keep pushing this strawman argument?*
> 
> * Bullshit they want to wipe out every Jew in the M.E and destroy Israel. It is entrenched in every single charter the HoAP have*
> 
> *Their leaders have already stated they're willing to accept a two-state solution, so your "charter" comment is full of shit!*
> 
> *Then why are they now denying a two state solution and are demanding a one Islamic state solution*
> 
> 
> What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?
> 
> *Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.*
> 
> *Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would fuck your country up!*
> 
> *Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you*
> 
> *You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area.  It's either one or the other.  How old are you?  You've got the logic of a 15 year old.*
> 
> *In August 2005 Israel completely withdrew from gaza and did not impose any restrictions or blockades until 2008, So were was the control of what went in or out other than that accorded to all nations under International law. How old are you and what grade did you stop your schooling, You sound like a 9 year old*
> 
> *They might of withdrawn physically from the area, but they never withdrew control over the area, nor did they stop conducting air raids and targeted assassinations?*
> 
> *They withdrew completely and gave up all control other than that accorded to all Nations under International law. The did not send any planes over gaza, they did not fire any weapons into gaza and they did not assassinate anyone in gaza. So why did the HoAP increase the rate of fire and severity of attacks on Israeli civilians, mostly children ?*
> 
> *Well, according to the UN...*
> 
> 
> 
> _* In 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and troops from Gaza while retaining control over its borders, seashore and airspace.*_
> 
> 
> 
> *...they didn't give up control of Gaza and once again, you are full of shit.*
> 
> 
> *As I said they only did as they were expected under International Law, just the same as the US does with its borders with Mexico. And just the same with airspace and sea, you really need to look more closely at International law and the Geneva Conventio*ns
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's what Israel wants.
> 
> *Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .*
> 
> *You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?*
> 
> *No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism. *
> 
> *You're FOS!  The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel.  The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election.  Like it's any of Israel's fucking business who the Pals vote for.  And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size.  BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.*
> 
> *Yes goods like grad rockets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, H.E, Nitrates and other weapons to be used to target Israel children. But then you NAZI JEW HATING SHIT don't believe that the JOOOOS should be allowed to defend themselves from attack do you. Is it any of your business who the UK vote for, and if they want to withdraw from the EU, because your tame neo Marxist chimp thinks it is. *
> 
> *Maybe they're weapons to be used to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.  Did you ever think of that?  As far as your UK comment, I don't see WTF that has to do with this conversation?  No only do you make up shit, it's stupid shit to boot!*
> 
> *What Israeli aggression as it is the HoAP that are the aggressors, the Israelis just respond to the constant rocket attacks. Take the ceasefire that hamas broke when they allowed rockets to be fired into Israel  in the vicinity of the Funeral. Was Israel supposed to just sit back and do nothing to safeguard the foreign dignitaries attending the Funeral. It's you that is full of shit, islamonazi shit at that *
> 
> *A population under occupation is not the aggressor.*
> 
> 
> * A population constantly showing belligerence soon becomes a population under occupation*
> 
> *Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored*
> 
> *You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?*
> 
> *Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels*
> *Personally, I'd rather buy American.*
> 
> *Then stop attacking the Jews because you are a NAZI JEW HATER because they keep 30% of American defence workers in employment. And going on the quality of the US goods I have then you are easily pleased with trash quality. Who wants a car that wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti*
> 
> *You tell me to "stop attacking the Jews", then you turn right around and attack Americans!  What a fucking hypocrite, you are.*
> 
> *Get it right I attack idiotic Americans like you who don't know what time it is. Who elect a neo Marxist to lead their country and fawn all over him when he bows to a muslim. *
> 
> *How could you have possibly been attacking me, when I've never made a car that "wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti"?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Have you ever owned one, and di you take it back because of those faults. If you have and kept it then you are instrumental in the design of unsafe cars. This explains why Italian and British sports cars exceed the sales of American muscle cars*
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.*
> 
> * Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!*
> 
> *Do I need to highlight all your LIES and PROFANITIES above, in the UK we say that this is a lack of education and is how low life's and crack whores talk.*
> 
> *The "LIES" you need to prove, the profanity is there for emphasis and has nothing to do with what I know, or don't know.*
> 
> * The LIES are self evident as you LIE for the muslims all the time, the profanities are there because you don't have the intelligence to come up with a reasoned argument. So all in all a complete idiot that has been brainwashed by a neo Marxist *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sorry, you have to prove the LIES.  The only reason you say they're "self-evident", is because you cannot prove what you claim.
> 
> Que pasa, mutha?*
Click to expand...


*Not at all if the LIES are self evident then no proof is required, and your LIES based on islamonazo propaganda are very self evident. *


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> becoming a member of the UN is not a pre-requisite to being granted statehood, Israel was recognised as a state before it was admitted to the UN. The legitimacy of a state is down to recognition by the majority of other states, so Palestine has no legitimacy until 2012. So until you can produce unbiased sources of the formation of a legitimate state recognised under International Law then Palestine is just a mark on the map to show an area of interest, much like the Sahara or Gobi deserts.
Click to expand...


Statehood is not granted. A nation of people inside a defined territory has the inherent right to declare statehood. They do not need to get permission from anyone. Recognition by other states is not required.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> becoming a member of the UN is not a pre-requisite to being granted statehood, Israel was recognised as a state before it was admitted to the UN. The legitimacy of a state is down to recognition by the majority of other states, so Palestine has no legitimacy until 2012. So until you can produce unbiased sources of the formation of a legitimate state recognised under International Law then Palestine is just a mark on the map to show an area of interest, much like the Sahara or Gobi deserts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statehood is not granted. A nation of people inside a defined territory has the inherent right to declare statehood. They do not need to get permission from anyone. Recognition by other states is not required.
Click to expand...


Hey Mr. Tinmore  

How are you doing this fine evening ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> becoming a member of the UN is not a pre-requisite to being granted statehood, Israel was recognised as a state before it was admitted to the UN. The legitimacy of a state is down to recognition by the majority of other states, so Palestine has no legitimacy until 2012. So until you can produce unbiased sources of the formation of a legitimate state recognised under International Law then Palestine is just a mark on the map to show an area of interest, much like the Sahara or Gobi deserts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statehood is not granted. A nation of people inside a defined territory has the inherent right to declare statehood. They do not need to get permission from anyone. Recognition by other states is not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Mr. Tinmore
> 
> How are you doing this fine evening ?
Click to expand...


I'm good. And you?


----------



## toastman

I'm alright , thanks for asking


----------



## pbel

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was recognized by five other states when it declared independence in 1948. They worked with those other states. Palestine was admitted to the Arab League as a member state in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
Click to expand...


_*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But was not recognised by the organisation that matters so they stayed stateless, unlike Israel that was recognised and admitted to the organisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
Click to expand...




 You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
Click to expand...


https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm



General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine



 Non-Member Observer State Status in United Nations


Objective to Breath New Life into Peace Process, Says Palestinian President;

Israels Delegate Counters, Without Direct Negotiations, Peace Remains Out of Reach


Voting by an overwhelming majority  138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions  the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.


The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:  enough of aggression, settlements and occupation, said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.  Indeed, following Israels latest aggression against the Gaza Strip, the international community now faced the last chance to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding:  the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out.


----------



## natstew

"People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose."

To regain their dignity? They never had any dignity to lose!!


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine
> 
> 
> 
>  Non-Member Observer State Status in United Nations
> 
> 
> Objective to Breath New Life into Peace Process, Says Palestinian President;
> 
> Israels Delegate Counters, Without Direct Negotiations, Peace Remains Out of Reach
> 
> 
> Voting by an overwhelming majority  138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions  the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:  enough of aggression, settlements and occupation, said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.  Indeed, following Israels latest aggression against the Gaza Strip, the international community now faced the last chance to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding:  the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out.
Click to expand...




*So were is the mention of '67 borders then, or did you slip that LIE  in hoping that it would be missed. You need to try much harder than this if you want to get one over on the decent people of the world.*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

natstew said:


> "People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose."
> 
> To regain their dignity? They never had any dignity to lose!!



"Willing to die" because Islam is a death cult.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
Click to expand...

The 67 borders are very nebulous, indeed. They are, in fact, the 1949 UN armistice lines. This is the definition of these lines:



> 2. The *Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,* and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



It is curious then that the UN recognizes Israel using the armistice lines to designate its location.

*It is important to note that the armistice lines do not merely separate Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but also separate Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. In many cases the armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders with its neighbors.*

The UN's own map of Israel has a disclaimer in the lower, left.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 67 borders are very nebulous, indeed. They are, in fact, the 1949 UN armistice lines. This is the definition of these lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The *Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,* and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is curious then that the UN recognizes Israel using the armistice lines to designate its location.
> 
> *It is important to note that the armistice lines do not merely separate Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but also separate Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. In many cases the armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders with its neighbors.*
> 
> The UN's own map of Israel has a disclaimer in the lower, left.
Click to expand...


Yeah, so what?  North and South Korea are also separated by armistice lines.  Does that mean they don't exist?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
> 
> 
> 
> The 67 borders are very nebulous, indeed. They are, in fact, the 1949 UN armistice lines. This is the definition of these lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The *Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,* and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is curious then that the UN recognizes Israel using the armistice lines to designate its location.
> 
> *It is important to note that the armistice lines do not merely separate Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but also separate Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. In many cases the armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders with its neighbors.*
> 
> The UN's own map of Israel has a disclaimer in the lower, left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so what?  North and South Korea are also separated by armistice lines.  Does that mean they don't exist?
Click to expand...


Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".


----------



## toastman

That is obviously not a current map of Israel, as it does not show the international boundaries between Israel & Egypt and Israel & Jordan


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 67 borders are very nebulous, indeed. They are, in fact, the 1949 UN armistice lines. This is the definition of these lines:
> 
> 
> 
> It is curious then that the UN recognizes Israel using the armistice lines to designate its location.
> 
> *It is important to note that the armistice lines do not merely separate Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but also separate Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. In many cases the armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders with its neighbors.*
> 
> The UN's own map of Israel has a disclaimer in the lower, left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so what?  North and South Korea are also separated by armistice lines.  Does that mean they don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".
Click to expand...


It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so what?  North and South Korea are also separated by armistice lines.  Does that mean they don't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
Click to expand...


South Sudan became independent only last year.  So it's not too late for Palestine on the West Bank, if they start acting normal.  But they ARE Arabs, so that's too much to ask.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South Sudan became independent only last year.  So it's not too late for Palestine on the West Bank, if they start acting normal.  But they ARE Arabs, so that's too much to ask.
Click to expand...


Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Sudan became independent only last year.  So it's not too late for Palestine on the West Bank, if they start acting normal.  But they ARE Arabs, so that's too much to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the great state of Palestine can do whatever they want


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

That's right.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.


*(COMMENT)*

Just so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights, sovereignty and territorial integrity of any adjacent country; to include Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so what?  North and South Korea are also separated by armistice lines.  Does that mean they don't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
Click to expand...


I'm also positive that if I ask you for a link to this claim, you will provide me a link to something else. But, I'll bite.

Link ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 67 borders are very nebulous, indeed. They are, in fact, the 1949 UN armistice lines. This is the definition of these lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The *Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,* and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is curious then that the UN recognizes Israel using the armistice lines to designate its location.
> 
> *It is important to note that the armistice lines do not merely separate Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but also separate Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. In many cases the armistice lines are drawn on top of Palestine's international borders with its neighbors.*
> 
> The UN's own map of Israel has a disclaimer in the lower, left.
Click to expand...




 Take a look at your map again as it does not convey what you claim it does. It shows the international borders of Israel inside which is the west bank and gaza.  Once again you produce evidence that does not support your fantasy world one iota


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so what?  North and South Korea are also separated by armistice lines.  Does that mean they don't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
Click to expand...




 Try again as it states boundary not borders, setting in stone once again that it was an area and not a nation.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Sudan became independent only last year.  So it's not too late for Palestine on the West Bank, if they start acting normal.  But they ARE Arabs, so that's too much to ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.
Click to expand...



Just the land owners of the land they are claiming as theirs, I wonder if they will pay for this land or just steal it ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the map says "Former Palestine Mandate".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm also positive that if I ask you for a link to this claim, you will provide me a link to something else. But, I'll bite.
> 
> Link ?
Click to expand...


I have many times. Would you like the opportunity to ignore them again?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the UN would use that term when the UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also positive that if I ask you for a link to this claim, you will provide me a link to something else. But, I'll bite.
> 
> Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have many times. Would you like the opportunity to ignore them again?
Click to expand...


I might be wrong, but I remember the link you posted several times was not consistent with the claim. I didn't ignore it


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Sudan became independent only last year.  So it's not too late for Palestine on the West Bank, if they start acting normal.  But they ARE Arabs, so that's too much to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just the land owners of the land they are claiming as theirs, I wonder if they will pay for this land or just steal it ?
Click to expand...


Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the land owners of the land they are claiming as theirs, I wonder if they will pay for this land or just steal it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
Click to expand...


and here we go again.......


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also positive that if I ask you for a link to this claim, you will provide me a link to something else. But, I'll bite.
> 
> Link ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many times. Would you like the opportunity to ignore them again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I might be wrong, but I remember the link you posted several times was not consistent with the claim. I didn't ignore it
Click to expand...


2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace* in Palestine* and to facilitate the transition frown the present truce to permanent peace *in Palestine*, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article. 

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. *

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

All four armistice agreements say the same thing.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state._"


True.

What they need is a time-machine, to travel back to May 14, 1948, and to declare Statehood and Independence on the very day that the Mandate expired.

What they need is a time-machine, to travel back to 1947-1948, and to prevent their younger selves (and parents and grandparents) from abandoning their homes and lands, and to stand their ground rather than running away.

What they need is a time-machine, to travel back to 1967, and to prevent their Jordanian and Egyptian and Syrian brethren and co-religionists and masters from attacking Israel, and giving Israel the excuse to capture lands and to hold them as spoils of war.

What they need is a time-machine, to un-do multiple Bad Decisions, in choosing not to negotiate and compromise with the Israelis, while the Israelis were still in a mood to compromise.

What they need is a time-machine, to prevent themselves from conducting years-long campaigns of terror-bombing within Israel, and to prevent their miscreant sympathizers from conducting even more horrific terror acts in their name; in full or in part  (Achille Lauro, Munich, Entebbe, 9-11, London Tube) - attaching to them forevermore the label: Terrorists.

What they need is a time-machine, to prevent themselves from gaining a reputation for saturating their childrens TV and radio programming and media with hatred and sugar-plum visions of godhead-rewarded martyrdom - repelling sane minds on the outside.

What they need are large tracts of arable, viable contiguous land, with access to water and waterways, trade routes, infrastructure, etc., rather than two disconnected and rapidly shrinking pockets of population; one of which (the West Bank) loses more ground every day, and which, itself, is already fragmented into scores of pockets within the older pocket.

What they need are leaders (and an electorate smart enough to put them into office) who accept the defeats of the past, who begin their work from that point moving forward, who swear-off the use of violence, who commit to peaceful co-existence, who concede Jerusalem, and who work towards dividing Old Palestine into two contiguous tracts of land; one for the Jews, one for the Muslims; both with access to water and resources and trade-routes and the like; like they should have done back in 1948.

What they need is the sanity to recognize the error of their ways (methods, etc.) and to commit to doing it differently, moving forward; convincing everyone (most importantly, the Israelis) that they mean what they say about a change-of-heart, and making it stick.

What the Palestinians need is a miracle.

Given their nature and their intransigence and political immaturity and foolishness, they will not get one.


----------



## toastman

Nothing here confirms what you said:

*UN confirmed that Palestine and its international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is misleading.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the land owners of the land they are claiming as theirs, I wonder if they will pay for this land or just steal it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People.

The Arab claim tries to establish sovereignty over the whole of the remainder of the former Mandatory; to include that which was already declared independent under the right to self-determination by the Jewish people.  The Jewish declaration was made earlier in time (first), in cooperation with and in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence by the General Assembly.

The Jewish declaration was achieved and coordinated by peaceful means and processes.  The Arab declaration was made during the conflict in which 5 Arab Armies attempted to take by force that which was denied them by the United Nations.  

There is a big difference between what you are trying to portray, and what actually happened. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People...
Click to expand...

Indeed.

If the Muslims had had the presence of mind to Declare on the same day that the Jews did (May 14, 1948), they might actually have had a viable legal argument to anchor their claims upon.

Given that they Declared in September 1948 - months later - they could only Declare for that part of unincorpoated Old Palestine which _remained_ unclaimed.

Standard fare for the Palestinians... a day late and a dinar short.

The early bird gets the worm, and all that.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> If the Muslims had had the presence of mind to Declare on the same day that the Jews did (May 14, 1948), they might actually have had a viable legal argument to anchor their claims upon.
> 
> Given that they Declared in September 1948 - months later - they could only Declare for that part of unincorpoated Old Palestine which _remained_ unclaimed.
> 
> Standard fare for the Palestinians... a day late and a dinar short.
> 
> The early bird gets the worm, and all that.
Click to expand...


Besides which, the 1988 Declaration is much better known (and even recognized).


----------



## Kondor3

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> If the Muslims had had the presence of mind to Declare on the same day that the Jews did (May 14, 1948), they might actually have had a viable legal argument to anchor their claims upon.
> 
> Given that they Declared in September 1948 - months later - they could only Declare for that part of unincorpoated Old Palestine which _remained_ unclaimed.
> 
> Standard fare for the Palestinians... a day late and a dinar short.
> 
> The early bird gets the worm, and all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides which, the 1988 Declaration is much better known (and even recognized).
Click to expand...

Besides which, it was the Arabs themselves that shut down the first so-called All-Palestine Government, as I recall.

Months too late, and shut down by your own side, no less.

Duh.

It's obvious to even the most devoted partisans that the Arabs were simply out-maneuvered and out-smarted and out-classed, in all important respects, in 1948, and that there are no _Do-Over_ squares on that game-board.

Better luck in the next lifetime...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> That's right.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not need anyone's permission to be a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights, sovereignty and territorial integrity of any adjacent country; to include Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Palestine's declaration did none of that.


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> If the Muslims had had the presence of mind to Declare on the same day that the Jews did (May 14, 1948), they might actually have had a viable legal argument to anchor their claims upon.
> 
> Given that they Declared in September 1948 - months later - they could only Declare for that part of unincorpoated Old Palestine which _remained_ unclaimed.
> 
> Standard fare for the Palestinians... a day late and a dinar short.
> 
> The early bird gets the worm, and all that.
Click to expand...


In simpler terms; The Jews had their shit together. The Arabs didn't


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> "..._In simpler terms; The Jews had their shit together. The Arabs didn't_"


Exactly.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Palestine's declaration did none of that._"


The September 1948 Arab Declaration did exactly that; claiming lands that had been claimed months before by somebody else.

There is no substitute for timely filing.

The Arabs learned that lesson the hard way.

And the silly bastards are still playing whiny-bitch over it, 65 years later.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is misleading.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the land owners of the land they are claiming as theirs, I wonder if they will pay for this land or just steal it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People.
Click to expand...

And your point is?



> The Arab claim tries to establish sovereignty over the whole of the remainder of the former Mandatory; to include that which was already declared independent under the right to self-determination by the Jewish people.  The Jewish declaration was made earlier in time (first), in cooperation with and in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence by the General Assembly.


You are the one who is misleading. The mandate was assigned *to Palestine.* It had no land or borders of it own.

Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence in 1948 did not include any Israeli land.

Israel did not accept resolution 181.



> The Jewish declaration was achieved and coordinated by peaceful means and processes.  The Arab declaration was made during the conflict in which 5 Arab Armies attempted to take by force that which was denied them by the United Nations.


There was a war inside Palestine at the time but how did that negate their right to declare their state?  



> There is a big difference between what you are trying to portray, and what actually happened.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I have to chuckle.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel did not accept resolution 181.


*(COMMENT)*

Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.



> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> 
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT *UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947* MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING *ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE* IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE *AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY* HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN *IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 *AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE. WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS. ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR *RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY* AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.
> 
> BEHALF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MOSHE SHERTOK FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/747 16 May 1948




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not accept resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> 
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT *UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947* MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING *ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE* IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE *AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY* HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN *IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 *AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE. WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS. ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR *RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY* AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.
> 
> BEHALF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MOSHE SHERTOK FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/747 16 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.

What part of resolution 181 did it accept?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not accept resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> 
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT *UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947* MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING *ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE* IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE *AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY* HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN *IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 *AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE. WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS. ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR *RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY* AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.
> 
> BEHALF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MOSHE SHERTOK FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/747 16 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
Click to expand...


Israel acquired more land as a result of the 1948-1949 War, not before.    As for Jerusalem, there has never been an "international" city in the history of the world.  Mecca and the Vatican are not international cities.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh come now.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not accept resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> 
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT *UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947* MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING *ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE* IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE *AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY* HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN *IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 *AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE. WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS. ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR *RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY* AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.
> 
> BEHALF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MOSHE SHERTOK FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/747 16 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May.  I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.  On the other hand, the Arab Legion, with the direct protection of the Mandatory (UK) was partially pre-positioned by then across the Jordan River. 

The Jewish State in Resolution 181(II) as defined in the Resolution was accepted.  

It should be noted, since you mentioned the Internationalization of Jerusalem, that it was the Arab Legion that destroyed the Jewish Quarter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is misleading.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point is?
> 
> *He has explained the point several times, stop asking questions in which know the answer*
> 
> You are the one who is misleading. The mandate was assigned *to Palestine.* It had no land or borders of it own.
> 
> Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence in 1948 did not include any Israeli land.
> 
> Israel did not accept resolution 181.
> 
> *Resolution 181 was proposed BEFORE the Establishment of Israel, and the Jews DID accept it. You're mixed up, again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish declaration was achieved and coordinated by peaceful means and processes.  The Arab declaration was made during the conflict in which 5 Arab Armies attempted to take by force that which was denied them by the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a war inside Palestine at the time but how did that negate their right to declare their state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between what you are trying to portray, and what actually happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is misleading.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's declaration of independence in 1948 was on its own land inside its own international borders. It did not claim the land of others.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab September 1948 Claim comes several months after the May 1948 Declaration by the Jewish People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point is?
> 
> 
> You are the one who is misleading. The mandate was assigned *to Palestine.* It had no land or borders of it own.
> 
> Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence in 1948 did not include any Israeli land.
> 
> Israel did not accept resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish declaration was achieved and coordinated by peaceful means and processes.  The Arab declaration was made during the conflict in which 5 Arab Armies attempted to take by force that which was denied them by the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a war inside Palestine at the time but how did that negate their right to declare their state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between what you are trying to portray, and what actually happened.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




 It all hinges on what you define as Palestine in regards to the mandate, do you include the land of trans Jordan that did not exist when the mandate was begun. The land of Syria and Iraq which was also part of Palestine and part of Lebanon which was also in Palestine. Or do you define Palestine as that parcel of land dedicated by the UN in the partition plan and UN res 181. If you consider all of Palestine as being the gowl then the HoAP received 90% of that land area with Israel getting a scant 10%. The Jews accepted the partition plan and went ahead with the terms of declaring independence.
 This part of 181 spells out why the HoAP are not in possession of a nation, and it is all down to their greed.
_ If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations._
Now Israel complied and showed it had a Provisional Council of Government, but the HoAP decided to rely on force to steal all the land. This led to a massive defeat of the Hoap and the shame of being humiliated by their former slaves.

 To declare independence Israel had to fully accept the terms of 181 under this clause
 C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses: 

General Provision

The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them. 

Chapter 1: Holy Places, Religious Buildings and Sites

Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired. 

In so far as Holy Places are concerned, the liberty of access, visit, and transit shall be guaranteed, in conformity with existing rights, to all residents and citizen of the other State and of the City of Jerusalem, as well as to aliens, without distinction as to nationality, subject to requirements of national security, public order and decorum. 

Similarly, freedom of worship shall be guaranteed in conformity with existing rights, subject to the maintenance of public order and decorum. 

Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved. No act shall be permitted which may in an way impair their sacred character. If at any time it appears to the Government that any particular Holy Place, religious, building or site is in need of urgent repair, the Government may call upon the community or communities concerned to carry out such repair. The Government may carry it out itself at the expense of the community or community concerned if no action is taken within a reasonable time. 

No taxation shall be levied in respect of any Holy Place, religious building or site which was exempt from taxation on the date of the creation of the State. 

No change in the incidence of such taxation shall be made which would either discriminate between the owners or occupiers of Holy Places, religious buildings or sites, or would place such owners or occupiers in a position less favourable in relation to the general incidence of taxation than existed at the time of the adoption of the Assembly's recommendations. 

The Governor of the City of Jerusalem shall have the right to determine whether the provisions of the Constitution of the State in relation to Holy Places, religious buildings and sites within the borders of the State and the religious rights appertaining thereto, are being properly applied and respected, and to make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community with respect to such places, buildings and sites. He shall receive full co-operation and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of his functions in the State. 

Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights

Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all. 

No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex. 

All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws. 

The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected. 

Except as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government, no measure shall be taken to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of religious or charitable bodies of all faiths or to discriminate against any representative or member of these bodies on the ground of his religion or nationality. 

The State shall ensure adequate primary and secondary education for the Arab and Jewish minority, respectively, in its own language and its cultural traditions. 

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the State may impose, shall not be denied or impaired. Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights. 

No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any citizen of the State of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the Press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.(3) 

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession. 

Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting. 

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside. 

2. International conventions

The State shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded. 

Any dispute about the applicability and continued validity of international conventions or treaties signed or adhered to by the mandatory Power on behalf of Palestine shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court. 

3. Financial obligations

The State shall respect and fulfil all financial obligations of whatever nature assumed on behalf of Palestine by the mandatory Power during the exercise of the Mandate and recognized by the State. This provision includes the right of public servants to pensions, compensation or gratuities. 

These obligations shall be fulfilled through participation in the Joint Economic Board in respect of those obligations applicable to Palestine as a whole, and individually in respect of those applicable to, and fairly apportionable between, the States. 

A Court of Claims, affiliated with the Joint Economic Board, and composed of one member appointed by the United Nations, one representative of the United Kingdom and one representative of the State concerned, should be established. Any dispute between the United Kingdom and the State respecting claims not recognized by the latter should be referred to that Court. 

Commercial concessions granted in respect of any part of Palestine prior to the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly shall continue to be valid according to their terms, unless modified by agreement between the concession-holders and the State. 

Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions

The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances. 

Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement. 



 YOU LOSE TO HISTORICAL FACT AND PROVEN TESTIMONY


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not accept resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> 
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT *UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947* MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING *ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE* IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE *AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY* HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN *IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 *AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE. WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS. ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR *RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY* AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.
> 
> BEHALF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MOSHE SHERTOK FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/747 16 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
Click to expand...





 The parts that mattered of course, and the UN accepted their right to be a sovereign nation.
 Now unless you have verifiable evidence of your claims above I request you with draw them


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to chuckle.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel acquired more land as a result of the 1948-1949 War, not before.    As for Jerusalem, there has never been an "international" city in the history of the world.  Mecca and the Vatican are not international cities.
Click to expand...




 In actual fact Israel lost land due to the 1948/1949 war and did not reclaim it until 1967.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Phoenall said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel acquired more land as a result of the 1948-1949 War, not before.    As for Jerusalem, there has never been an "international" city in the history of the world.  Mecca and the Vatican are not international cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In actual fact Israel lost land due to the 1948/1949 war and did not reclaim it until 1967.
Click to expand...


Under the Partition Plan, Israel would've been even narrower than the Armistice Lines of 1949.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> &#8216; Non-Member Observer State&#8217; Status in United Nations
> 
> 
> Objective to &#8216;Breath New Life&#8217; into Peace Process, Says Palestinian President;
> 
> Israel&#8217;s Delegate Counters, Without Direct Negotiations, Peace Remains &#8216;Out of Reach&#8217;
> 
> 
> Voting by an overwhelming majority &#8212; 138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions &#8212; the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> &#8220;The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:  enough of aggression, settlements and occupation,&#8221; said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to &#8220;issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine&#8221;.  Indeed, following Israel&#8217;s latest aggression against the Gaza Strip, the international community now faced &#8220;the last chance&#8221; to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding:  &#8220;the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out&#8221;.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So were is the mention of '67 borders then, or did you slip that LIE  in hoping that it would be missed. You need to try much harder than this if you want to get one over on the decent people of the world.*
Click to expand...


General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...



https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*



https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm

United Nations


The international community should use influence on Israel, he said, to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations.  The United Arab Emirates would continue its political support and development aid to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas.  Israel must immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.


*Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ..... He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State established .... an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital within its 1967 borders.*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine
> 
> 
> 
>  Non-Member Observer State Status in United Nations
> 
> 
> Objective to Breath New Life into Peace Process, Says Palestinian President;
> 
> Israels Delegate Counters, Without Direct Negotiations, Peace Remains Out of Reach
> 
> 
> Voting by an overwhelming majority  138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions  the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:  enough of aggression, settlements and occupation, said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.  Indeed, following Israels latest aggression against the Gaza Strip, the international community now faced the last chance to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding:  the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So were is the mention of '67 borders then, or did you slip that LIE  in hoping that it would be missed. You need to try much harder than this if you want to get one over on the decent people of the world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> 
> United Nations
> 
> 
> The international community should use influence on Israel, he said, to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations.  The United Arab Emirates would continue its political support and development aid to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas.  Israel must immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.
> 
> 
> *Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ..... He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State established .... an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital within its 1967 borders.*
Click to expand...


Let's see...return the Golan Heights back to Syria, while it's in the midst of a civil war with the Butcher of Baghdad slaughtering thousands of people.  Very practical.

Lebanon...no troops there since 2000.

Gaza...while it's ruled by Hamas, which denies Israel's existence.  Wait a minute, Israel withdrew in 2005.

West Bank...still in negotiations.

East Jerusalem...no way.  Remembered by a broken glass at every Jewish wedding.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh come now.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I have to chuckle.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where did you get this notion?  You keep saying that, but I don't quite understand your basis for this contention.  The State of Israel accepted it in 1948, and participated in the implementation process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May.  I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.  On the other hand, the Arab Legion, with the direct protection of the Mandatory (UK) was partially pre-positioned by then across the Jordan River.
> 
> The Jewish State in Resolution 181(II) as defined in the Resolution was accepted.
> 
> It should be noted, since you mentioned the Internationalization of Jerusalem, that it was the Arab Legion that destroyed the Jewish Quarter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May. I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.



Come on yourself, Rocco. Could you have possibly come up with a more stupid excuse than that?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh come now.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May.  I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.  On the other hand, the Arab Legion, with the direct protection of the Mandatory (UK) was partially pre-positioned by then across the Jordan River.
> 
> The Jewish State in Resolution 181(II) as defined in the Resolution was accepted.
> 
> It should be noted, since you mentioned the Internationalization of Jerusalem, that it was the Arab Legion that destroyed the Jewish Quarter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May. I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on yourself, Rocco. Could you have possibly come up with a more stupid excuse than that?
Click to expand...


Huh??? What excuse are you talking about? He's stating a fact. 

I notice you always ignore Israels declaration of independence. You never mention it, and when someone else does, you change the subject or say something not related to it. Why is that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh come now.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May.  I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.  On the other hand, the Arab Legion, with the direct protection of the Mandatory (UK) was partially pre-positioned by then across the Jordan River.
> 
> The Jewish State in Resolution 181(II) as defined in the Resolution was accepted.
> 
> It should be noted, since you mentioned the Internationalization of Jerusalem, that it was the Arab Legion that destroyed the Jewish Quarter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May. I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on yourself, Rocco. Could you have possibly come up with a more stupid excuse than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh??? What excuse are you talking about? He's stating a fact.
> 
> I notice you always ignore Israels declaration of independence. You never mention it, and when someone else does, you change the subject or say something not related to it. Why is that?
Click to expand...


How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.

Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.

When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.

So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel acquired more land as a result of the 1948-1949 War, not before.    As for Jerusalem, there has never been an "international" city in the history of the world.  Mecca and the Vatican are not international cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In actual fact Israel lost land due to the 1948/1949 war and did not reclaim it until 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Partition Plan, Israel would've been even narrower than the Armistice Lines of 1949.
Click to expand...



 Yet it still lost land on its eastern side to Jordan, this land was not recovered till 1967, and the bleeding heart liberals screech about the Jews stealing land when it was theirs in the first place. Also the fantasy '67 borders take land away from Israel which is why the ragheads and anti semites want them so bad.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine
> 
> 
> 
>  Non-Member Observer State Status in United Nations
> 
> 
> Objective to Breath New Life into Peace Process, Says Palestinian President;
> 
> Israels Delegate Counters, Without Direct Negotiations, Peace Remains Out of Reach
> 
> 
> Voting by an overwhelming majority  138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions  the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly:  enough of aggression, settlements and occupation, said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.  Indeed, following Israels latest aggression against the Gaza Strip, the international community now faced the last chance to save the long elusive two-State solution, he said, adding:  the window of opportunity is narrowing and time is quickly running out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So were is the mention of '67 borders then, or did you slip that LIE  in hoping that it would be missed. You need to try much harder than this if you want to get one over on the decent people of the world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> 
> United Nations
> 
> 
> The international community should use influence on Israel, he said, to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations.  The United Arab Emirates would continue its political support and development aid to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas.  Israel must immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.
> 
> 
> *Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ..... He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State established .... an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital within its 1967 borders.*
Click to expand...




 Still no mention of the UN recognising Palestine to the non existent 1967 borders, posting the rant by the Palestinian representative is not proof of the borders.

 WHY DO YOU COMPOUND YOUR LIES WITH MORE LIES YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE CAUGHT OUT. ALL YOU DO IS DELIGITIMIZE THE HoAP CLAIMS FOR PALESTINE WHEN YOU DO SO, IT IS DISINGENIUS AND ANTI SEMITIC TO MAKE ONE SIDED FALSE CLAIMS.

  Now an apology is in order for your falsehood, anytime today will do.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh come now.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time Israel declared independence it had already violated the proposed borders, the international city of Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population.
> 
> What part of resolution 181 did it accept?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May.  I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.  On the other hand, the Arab Legion, with the direct protection of the Mandatory (UK) was partially pre-positioned by then across the Jordan River.
> 
> The Jewish State in Resolution 181(II) as defined in the Resolution was accepted.
> 
> It should be noted, since you mentioned the Internationalization of Jerusalem, that it was the Arab Legion that destroyed the Jewish Quarter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel did not come into effect until midnight 14/15 May. I could not have possibly violated any border prior to that because Part II - Boundaries, Section B - Jewish State, did not come into effect until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on yourself, Rocco. Could you have possibly come up with a more stupid excuse than that?
Click to expand...




 Not an excuse but reality and the facts that destroy your LIES time after time. Just as your LIE about the UN recognising Paleatine to the fantasy 67 borders, destroyed and you shown to be a LIAR


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on yourself, Rocco. Could you have possibly come up with a more stupid excuse than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh??? What excuse are you talking about? He's stating a fact.
> 
> I notice you always ignore Israels declaration of independence. You never mention it, and when someone else does, you change the subject or say something not related to it. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.
> 
> *Correct as it goes against the UN charter, but it could have declared on the land allocated under the partition plan*
> 
> Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.
> *The defined territory was that allocated by the partition  plan that went out the window as soon as the HoAP attacked Israel with the intention of stealing the land and ethnically cleansing it of the Jews. So the only maps are those of 1947 and the partition plan, blame your heros for that*
> When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> *WHY DO YOU LIE the agreements mention Israel but not Palestine. No Palestinian borders are even mentioned and the maps show this to be a fact*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note the colours that define the 1948 map of Israel and the 1949 armistice lines, or green line.*
> So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.
Click to expand...


*Just done so and now you will have to shut up with your FILTHY ANTI SEMITIC NAZI LIES*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on yourself, Rocco. Could you have possibly come up with a more stupid excuse than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh??? What excuse are you talking about? He's stating a fact.
> 
> I notice you always ignore Israels declaration of independence. You never mention it, and when someone else does, you change the subject or say something not related to it. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.
> 
> Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.
> 
> When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.
Click to expand...


* When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows*

We showed you. But then you come up with you "when did the Palestinians transfer this land to Israel?" which of course has nothing to do with nothing. Rocco explained to you that transfering of land is a real estate concept and has nothing to do with this. 
*
When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.*

What does the fact that the word 'Israel' is not mentioned have to do with anything?? The 1949 armistice agreements gave Israel Cease Fire lines, not borders. How can Israel have borders with any of those countries surrounding it if a peace treaty (or a permanent cessation to hostilities) has not been signed between them? 1949 was wayyyy before Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. I have no problem showing you the link AGAIN, if you'd like.

*So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.*

Just because you don't understand our explanations, doesn't mean we showed you nothing to be true. It's a very simple concept. Israel LEGALLY declared independence on the land allotted to it in Resolution 181. How can someone else declare independence on the SAME LAND AS ANOTHER COUNTRY. Answer; not possible. BTW, why didn't Palestine declare independence before Israel?? They had plenty of time, the way I see it. 

Legality of the declaration: 
After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. *Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine*. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

After the bold writing, you will see what it says about how 'Palestine' did not become a state. Further proof that their declaration of Independence in 1948 never amounted to anything. It was purely symbolic the way I see it.

Also, we've shown you how the real DOI by the Palestinians was in 1988. Type in 'Palestinian Declaration of Independence' in the search engine, and they will all show you the one in 1988.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So were is the mention of '67 borders then, or did you slip that LIE  in hoping that it would be missed. You need to try much harder than this if you want to get one over on the decent people of the world.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> 
> United Nations
> 
> 
> The international community should use influence on Israel, he said, to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations.  The United Arab Emirates would continue its political support and development aid to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas.  Israel must immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.
> 
> 
> *Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ..... He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State established .... an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital within its 1967 borders.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no mention of the UN recognising Palestine to the non existent 1967 borders, posting the rant by the Palestinian representative is not proof of the borders.
> 
> WHY DO YOU COMPOUND YOUR LIES WITH MORE LIES YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE CAUGHT OUT. ALL YOU DO IS DELIGITIMIZE THE HoAP CLAIMS FOR PALESTINE WHEN YOU DO SO, IT IS DISINGENIUS AND ANTI SEMITIC TO MAKE ONE SIDED FALSE CLAIMS.
> 
> Now an apology is in order for your falsehood, anytime today will do.
Click to expand...


Poor Ptoenail just can't seem to read or have the logic to add a simple sum; The UN and everybody who writes clearly mention the 67 borders...Not only that no one on planet earth including the UN and USA have ever recognized any annexations past the green line....

Well post proof of otherwise.




General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...



https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*





United Nations





Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ... Palestine came before the Assembly because it believed in peace, and because .... Palestinian State based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a .... It would show that the world would not accept the continuation of the occupation.


Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free ...



en.wikipedia.org/.../Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Natio...*





Wikipedia





In 1982, the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" became the usual name. ... In October 1993, for the first time since 1981, the Arab members of the UN did .... has an automatic majority," and that the vote "proved that the United States is the ... Nations, endorses the two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> The UN and everybody who writes clearly mention the 67 borders...


Well, they don't exist. Aren't _The UN and everybody who writes ..._, funny arseholes?


pbel said:


> Not only that no one on planet earth including the UN and USA have ever recognized any annexations past the green line....


While the EU subsidizes the turkish occupation of the Northern Cyprus, funny too.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> 
> United Nations
> 
> 
> The international community should use influence on Israel, he said, to compel it to immediately stop all its unilateral policies which resulted in the freezing of peace negotiations.  The United Arab Emirates would continue its political support and development aid to the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas.  Israel must immediately end all its aggressive policies against the Palestinian people, and fully withdraw from all Palestinian and Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied Lebanese territories.
> 
> 
> *Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ..... He went on to say that Palestine did not seek to delegitimize a State established .... an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital within its 1967 borders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no mention of the UN recognising Palestine to the non existent 1967 borders, posting the rant by the Palestinian representative is not proof of the borders.
> 
> WHY DO YOU COMPOUND YOUR LIES WITH MORE LIES YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE CAUGHT OUT. ALL YOU DO IS DELIGITIMIZE THE HoAP CLAIMS FOR PALESTINE WHEN YOU DO SO, IT IS DISINGENIUS AND ANTI SEMITIC TO MAKE ONE SIDED FALSE CLAIMS.
> 
> Now an apology is in order for your falsehood, anytime today will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Ptoenail just can't seem to read or have the logic to add a simple sum; The UN and everybody who writes clearly mention the 67 borders...Not only that no one on planet earth including the UN and USA have ever recognized any annexations past the green line....
> 
> Well post proof of otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine 'Non ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/.../ga11317.doc.ht...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 29, 2012 - Non-Member Observer State' Status in United Nations ... Palestine came before the Assembly because it believed in peace, and because .... Palestinian State based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a .... It would show that the world would not accept the continuation of the occupation.
> 
> 
> Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free ...
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/.../Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Natio...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1982, the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" became the usual name. ... In October 1993, for the first time since 1981, the Arab members of the UN did .... has an automatic majority," and that the vote "proved that the United States is the ... Nations, endorses the two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders
Click to expand...




 Try again as there is no mention in any UN official documents of Palestine being recognised in the 1967 borders, there cant be as they never existed. You are trying to pass off the words of the Palestinian representative as official UN acceptance and everyone can see through your LIE

 You can post as many part press releases as you want it will not change the reality and here is the official UN document that says the borders never existed

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

 1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

	(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces* from territories occupied in the recent conflict;*
	(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

 Now were are the '67 borders mentioned in the '67 UN resolution


----------



## Phoenall

docmauser1 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN and everybody who writes clearly mention the 67 borders...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they don't exist. Aren't _The UN and everybody who writes ..._, funny arseholes?
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that no one on planet earth including the UN and USA have ever recognized any annexations past the green line....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While the EU subsidizes the turkish occupation of the Northern Cyprus, funny too.
Click to expand...




 Here is the reality the UN does not mention any '67 borders at all. Here is the official release

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

 1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

	(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

	(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

As has been said before, in the discussion group - and in the news, the current talks had a so-so chance of success.  Peace cannot really be achieved if neither side is ready to compromise.  And it doesn't appear that either side is will _(so far)_ to make the hard choices.

So, it looks like the Palestinians will lose out again on the potential for stability that will bring economic prosperity to their piece of the region.

The _status quo_ looks like it will return and the Israeli Settlement Programs will continue on --- until the noose tightens and the Palestinians choke on the cord around their crippled economy; a process they set in motion more than half a century ago.

In the mean time, while the Israelis the lack of a meaningful agreement with the Palestinians has an economic impact on the entire region.  Israel costs to provide gas and oil to the adjacent states, without well rounded peace settlement with the Palestinians, limits the potential sales to Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey.  So it is going to be forced in building a superstructure that favors trade with Europe.  This further and unnecessarily penalizes the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither the Gaza Government or the West Bank Government can afford to live indefinitely on the handouts from the US and other Arab League contributors.  You run into what they call "donor fatigue."  And the factional Palestinians cannot generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current standard of living.  Since the discover of the Levantine basin of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, donor aid for the Palestinians has dropped by 40% or more; with donor disappointment in the peace talk process and meaningful results.  

Israel has already launched a gas platform operations (March 2013) in the Tamar gas field _(estimated 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas)_ in the Mediterranean, just east of the Leviathan Field, just 24 miles off the port city of Ashkelon, and the Tamar-1 Rig has delivered more than 28 Million Cubic Feet per Day of gas during peak demand periods.  There are plans for a totally of 6 Rigs, in just the Tamar Field.  



The lack of progress in the Talks will inflect pain on both sides of the table, but more so on the Palestinian side.  It is in everyone's best interest in the immediate region, for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to some sort of arrangement.  We need to break the mold that always brings us back to UN Agreements and policy stances that are a half-century old.  They have long sing lost relevance as some form of viable solution or negotiation parameter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Rocco, Abbas has already stated that there will be no peace deal unless Israel moves back to the 1967 borders (I believe he even said no land swaps), until all Israelis are gone from the west bank, until all prisoners post Olso accords are released and of course my favorite one, until Israel allows right of return. 
The current peace talks are fake. When I say fake, I mean although both sides are negotiating, in reality, they both no a peace deal will not be reached.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> Rocco, Abbas has already stated that there will be no peace deal unless Israel moves back to the 1967 borders (I believe he even said no land swaps), until all Israelis are gone from the west bank, until all prisoners post Olso accords are released and of course my favorite one, until Israel allows right of return.
> The current peace talks are fake. When I say fake, I mean although both sides are negotiating, in reality, they both no a peace deal will not be reached.





As Rokor says the resolutions used to set the scene are half a century old and should be torn up and new more modern ones put in their place. There should also be a time frame for agreement between the parties involved or the Un sits in private with neither side present and hammers out a deal that will be a take it or leave it affair. This of course will never come to pass because of other countries interests in the area. Israel has shown they can be honourable to an honourable opponent, the PA has yet to show it can be trusted. We need to see commitment to peace by both sides before we can make plans for the future. If something isn't done then that area will be in a state of war for ever, and the innocents will be the ones suffering.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN and everybody who writes clearly mention the 67 borders...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they don't exist. Aren't _The UN and everybody who writes ..._, funny arseholes?
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that no one on planet earth including the UN and USA have ever recognized any annexations past the green line....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While the EU subsidizes the turkish occupation of the Northern Cyprus, funny too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the reality the UN does not mention any '67 borders at all. Here is the official release
> 
> S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
> 
> 1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
> 
> (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
> (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Click to expand...


*What were those areas Ptonaill? West Bank, Jerusalem Etc.?*


----------



## Kondor3

Oh, Goodie, more squabbling over Charmin... a.k.a. UN resolutions...


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> As has been said before, in the discussion group - and in the news, the current talks had a so-so chance of success.  Peace cannot really be achieved if neither side is ready to compromise.  And it doesn't appear that either side is will _(so far)_ to make the hard choices.
> 
> So, it looks like the Palestinians will lose out again on the potential for stability that will bring economic prosperity to their piece of the region.
> 
> The _status quo_ looks like it will return and the Israeli Settlement Programs will continue on --- until the noose tightens and the Palestinians choke on the cord around their crippled economy; a process they set in motion more than half a century ago.
> 
> In the mean time, while the Israelis the lack of a meaningful agreement with the Palestinians has an economic impact on the entire region.  Israel costs to provide gas and oil to the adjacent states, without well rounded peace settlement with the Palestinians, limits the potential sales to Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey.  So it is going to be forced in building a superstructure that favors trade with Europe.  This further and unnecessarily penalizes the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither the Gaza Government or the West Bank Government can afford to live indefinitely on the handouts from the US and other Arab League contributors.  You run into what they call "donor fatigue."  And the factional Palestinians cannot generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current standard of living.  Since the discover of the Levantine basin of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, donor aid for the Palestinians has dropped by 40% or more; with donor disappointment in the peace talk process and meaningful results.
> 
> Israel has already launched a gas platform operations (March 2013) in the Tamar gas field _(estimated 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas)_ in the Mediterranean, just east of the Leviathan Field, just 24 miles off the port city of Ashkelon, and the Tamar-1 Rig has delivered more than 28 Million Cubic Feet per Day of gas during peak demand periods.  There are plans for a totally of 6 Rigs, in just the Tamar Field.
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of progress in the Talks will inflect pain on both sides of the table, but more so on the Palestinian side.  It is in everyone's best interest in the immediate region, for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to some sort of arrangement.  We need to break the mold that always brings us back to UN Agreements and policy stances that are a half-century old.  They have long sing lost relevance as some form of viable solution or negotiation parameter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.

Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

There are very few people that willing accept the suffering, pain, and humiliation, as are the Palestinian in pursuit of their brand of justice.  Over and over again, they have chosen force and violence over peaceful means and the Rule of Law.



pbel said:


> Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.
> 
> Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Palestinians opened the conflict in 1948, and were instrumental in the perpetuation of the conflict for more than half a century.  But in doing so, what contribution have they made to the advancement and prosperity of their culture; the Arab Palestinian.  How much better-off today are the Palestinians than what they would have been if they had joined in peace with the implementation of the Resolution.  And in being in conflict, how much better-off will they tomorrow, next week, next year, a decade from now, in their choice to actively continue the conflict?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> As has been said before, in the discussion group - and in the news, the current talks had a so-so chance of success.  Peace cannot really be achieved if neither side is ready to compromise.  And it doesn't appear that either side is will _(so far)_ to make the hard choices.
> 
> So, it looks like the Palestinians will lose out again on the potential for stability that will bring economic prosperity to their piece of the region.
> 
> The _status quo_ looks like it will return and the Israeli Settlement Programs will continue on --- until the noose tightens and the Palestinians choke on the cord around their crippled economy; a process they set in motion more than half a century ago.
> 
> In the mean time, while the Israelis the lack of a meaningful agreement with the Palestinians has an economic impact on the entire region.  Israel costs to provide gas and oil to the adjacent states, without well rounded peace settlement with the Palestinians, limits the potential sales to Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey.  So it is going to be forced in building a superstructure that favors trade with Europe.  This further and unnecessarily penalizes the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither the Gaza Government or the West Bank Government can afford to live indefinitely on the handouts from the US and other Arab League contributors.  You run into what they call "donor fatigue."  And the factional Palestinians cannot generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current standard of living.  Since the discover of the Levantine basin of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, donor aid for the Palestinians has dropped by 40% or more; with donor disappointment in the peace talk process and meaningful results.
> 
> Israel has already launched a gas platform operations (March 2013) in the Tamar gas field _(estimated 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas)_ in the Mediterranean, just east of the Leviathan Field, just 24 miles off the port city of Ashkelon, and the Tamar-1 Rig has delivered more than 28 Million Cubic Feet per Day of gas during peak demand periods.  There are plans for a totally of 6 Rigs, in just the Tamar Field.
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of progress in the Talks will inflect pain on both sides of the table, but more so on the Palestinian side.  It is in everyone's best interest in the immediate region, for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to some sort of arrangement.  We need to break the mold that always brings us back to UN Agreements and policy stances that are a half-century old.  They have long sing lost relevance as some form of viable solution or negotiation parameter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.
> 
> Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...
Click to expand...


You don't get it do you?? Having no peace deal is wayyy worse for the Palestinians. It means they don't get their country and will remain blockaded in Gaza and living under Israeli rule in the West Bank. 
Israel can play the waiting till hell freezes over game too.

Oh, and this whole 'war of attrition' bullshit is such.....bullshit. I don't know why you bring it up.


----------



## GISMYS

BIBLE PROPHECY WRITTEN OVER 3000 YEARS AGO FOR TODAY!!!==NATIONS AGAINST TINY ISRAEL NOTHING NEW!!!!===PSALM 83:1-5==
O God, do not remain silent.
Do not turn a deaf ear to me.
Do not keep quiet, O God.
Look, your enemies are in an uproar.
Those who hate you hold their heads high.
They make plans in secret against your people
and plot together against those you treasure.
They say, Lets wipe out their nation
so that the name of Israel will no longer be remembered.
They agree completely on their plan.
They form an alliance against you:


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There are very few people that willing accept the suffering, pain, and humiliation, as are the Palestinian in pursuit of their brand of justice.  Over and over again, they have chosen force and violence over peaceful means and the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.
> 
> Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the Palestinians opened the conflict in 1948, and were instrumental in the perpetuation of the conflict for more than half a century.  But in doing so, what contribution have they made to the advancement and prosperity of their culture; the Arab Palestinian.  How much better-off today are the Palestinians than what they would have been if they had joined in peace with the implementation of the Resolution.  And in being in conflict, how much better-off will they tomorrow, next week, next year, a decade from now, in their choice to actively continue the conflict?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...

Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...

As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?

The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

The joint cooperation and mutual compromise in the interest of peace is NOT same thing as surrender.



pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There are very few people that willing accept the suffering, pain, and humiliation, as are the Palestinian in pursuit of their brand of justice.  Over and over again, they have chosen force and violence over peaceful means and the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.
> 
> Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the Palestinians opened the conflict in 1948, and were instrumental in the perpetuation of the conflict for more than half a century.  But in doing so, what contribution have they made to the advancement and prosperity of their culture; the Arab Palestinian.  How much better-off today are the Palestinians than what they would have been if they had joined in peace with the implementation of the Resolution.  And in being in conflict, how much better-off will they tomorrow, next week, next year, a decade from now, in their choice to actively continue the conflict?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...
> 
> Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...
> 
> As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?
> 
> The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Resistance for a thousand years, only sets the Palestinian back a thousand years.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> The joint cooperation and mutual compromise in the interest of peace is NOT same thing as surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There are very few people that willing accept the suffering, pain, and humiliation, as are the Palestinian in pursuit of their brand of justice.  Over and over again, they have chosen force and violence over peaceful means and the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the Palestinians opened the conflict in 1948, and were instrumental in the perpetuation of the conflict for more than half a century.  But in doing so, what contribution have they made to the advancement and prosperity of their culture; the Arab Palestinian.  How much better-off today are the Palestinians than what they would have been if they had joined in peace with the implementation of the Resolution.  And in being in conflict, how much better-off will they tomorrow, next week, next year, a decade from now, in their choice to actively continue the conflict?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...
> 
> Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...
> 
> As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?
> 
> The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Resistance for a thousand years, only sets the Palestinian back a thousand years.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

The History of Palestine proves Occupiers are always ultimately driven out of the land. 




RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> The joint cooperation and mutual compromise in the interest of peace is NOT same thing as surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There are very few people that willing accept the suffering, pain, and humiliation, as are the Palestinian in pursuit of their brand of justice.  Over and over again, they have chosen force and violence over peaceful means and the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the Palestinians opened the conflict in 1948, and were instrumental in the perpetuation of the conflict for more than half a century.  But in doing so, what contribution have they made to the advancement and prosperity of their culture; the Arab Palestinian.  How much better-off today are the Palestinians than what they would have been if they had joined in peace with the implementation of the Resolution.  And in being in conflict, how much better-off will they tomorrow, next week, next year, a decade from now, in their choice to actively continue the conflict?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...
> 
> Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...
> 
> As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?
> 
> The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Resistance for a thousand years, only sets the Palestinian back a thousand years.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> The History of Palestine proves Occupiers are always ultimately driven out of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> The joint cooperation and mutual compromise in the interest of peace is NOT same thing as surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...
> 
> Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...
> 
> As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?
> 
> The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Resistance for a thousand years, only sets the Palestinian back a thousand years.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*yawn*

For 65 years, we've been hearing that they will drive the Jews out of Israel. We will hearing it for the next 65 years.


----------



## RoccoR

SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_

The History of the Region is anything but flattering to the legacy of the Arab Palestinian.  



SherriMunnerlyn said:


> The History of Palestine proves Occupiers are always ultimately driven out of the land.


*(COMMENT)*

And ultimately, the indigenous population gives way to a sovereignty other than there own.  Only a Hostile Arab Palestinian would look forward to a thousand years of conflict.  It is not much of a positive legacy to pass down from generation to generation; Jihadist to Jihadist.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Remember Rocco, for the Hostile Arabs, Jihad is a duty. They would rather have generations of war then admit defeat.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> SherriMunnerlyn,  _et al,_
> 
> The History of the Region is anything but flattering to the legacy of the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The History of Palestine proves Occupiers are always ultimately driven out of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And ultimately, the indigenous population gives way to a sovereignty other than there own.  Only a Hostile Arab Palestinian would look forward to a thousand years of conflict.  It is not much of a positive legacy to pass down from generation to generation; Jihadist to Jihadist.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Arabs will never submit to Western Colonialism...the results have been Iraq and soon Afghanistan...and America is pulling out because it has bankrupted us in money and blood.

The Europeans also clamor for peace because their Economic life-line depends on oil and are already boycotting her and threat more if peace fails.

Justice is catching up to Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they don't exist. Aren't _The UN and everybody who writes ..._, funny arseholes?While the EU subsidizes the turkish occupation of the Northern Cyprus, funny too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the reality the UN does not mention any '67 borders at all. Here is the official release
> 
> S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
> 
> 1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
> 
> (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
> (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What were those areas Ptonaill? West Bank, Jerusalem Etc.?*
Click to expand...




 It does not say does it, and that was done deliberately by the authors to leave the question of borders wide open.

 Here are just some of the clearer meanings of res 242 that spell out just what the UN were about

 While Resolution 242 may call upon Israel to withdraw from territory it captured
during the war, *the UN recognized that Israel cannot return to the non-secure
borders existing before the Six-Day War that invited aggression * frontiers that
the usually mild-mannered and eloquent former Israeli diplomat, the late Abba
Eban, branded Auschwitz borders.

So although Arab officials claim Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from all territory it captured in June 1967, *nowhere in the resolution is that demand delineated*. Nor did those involved in the negotiations and drafting of the resolution want such a requirement. Instead, they say Resolution 242 explicitly and intentionally omitted the terms the territories or all territories.

The wording of UN Resolution 242 clearly reflects the contention that *none of the territories were occupied territories taken by force in an unjust war.*
Because the Arabs were clearly the aggressors, *nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 is Israel branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the territories*.

Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear:
Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, *calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces from territories it occupied during the Six-Day War *- not from the territories nor from all the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip

Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable Armistice Demarcation Lines [Green Line], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called secure and recognized boundaries

Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the resolution, said several years later:
We knew that the boundaries of 67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the 67 boundaries must be forever.

It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, *that is not a permanent boundary*

*It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967*.  That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.7

Professor, Judge Schwebel wrote:
A state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense.  Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other,* Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.10*

But former U.S. Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, the American Ambassador to the UN who played a key role in the ultimate language adopted, pointed out:
A notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a Palestinian state on the West Bank or the PLO. The resolution addresses the objective of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem. This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars.13


http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-242.pdf


 So there you have it spelt out by Judges, UN diplomats and International Law lawyers just what 242 means and how it affects the Israeli's and Palestinians. Take note of the fact that the authors say that no borders were ever delineated deliberately, and that Israel has the better claim on the land of gaza and the west bank than the Palestinians. All enshrined in INTERNATIONAL LAW


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> As has been said before, in the discussion group - and in the news, the current talks had a so-so chance of success.  Peace cannot really be achieved if neither side is ready to compromise.  And it doesn't appear that either side is will _(so far)_ to make the hard choices.
> 
> So, it looks like the Palestinians will lose out again on the potential for stability that will bring economic prosperity to their piece of the region.
> 
> The _status quo_ looks like it will return and the Israeli Settlement Programs will continue on --- until the noose tightens and the Palestinians choke on the cord around their crippled economy; a process they set in motion more than half a century ago.
> 
> In the mean time, while the Israelis the lack of a meaningful agreement with the Palestinians has an economic impact on the entire region.  Israel costs to provide gas and oil to the adjacent states, without well rounded peace settlement with the Palestinians, limits the potential sales to Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey.  So it is going to be forced in building a superstructure that favors trade with Europe.  This further and unnecessarily penalizes the economies of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither the Gaza Government or the West Bank Government can afford to live indefinitely on the handouts from the US and other Arab League contributors.  You run into what they call "donor fatigue."  And the factional Palestinians cannot generate sufficient revenues to maintain the current standard of living.  Since the discover of the Levantine basin of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, donor aid for the Palestinians has dropped by 40% or more; with donor disappointment in the peace talk process and meaningful results.
> 
> Israel has already launched a gas platform operations (March 2013) in the Tamar gas field _(estimated 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas)_ in the Mediterranean, just east of the Leviathan Field, just 24 miles off the port city of Ashkelon, and the Tamar-1 Rig has delivered more than 28 Million Cubic Feet per Day of gas during peak demand periods.  There are plans for a totally of 6 Rigs, in just the Tamar Field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of progress in the Talks will inflect pain on both sides of the table, but more so on the Palestinian side.  It is in everyone's best interest in the immediate region, for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to some sort of arrangement.  We need to break the mold that always brings us back to UN Agreements and policy stances that are a half-century old.  They have long sing lost relevance as some form of viable solution or negotiation parameter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.
> 
> Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...
Click to expand...




 I see yiur needle is stuck on the same groove again, read the report I posted and then go away and lick your wounds. Israel under International Law has a better claim to gaza and the west bank than the Palestinians.

 And for the record Israel has already complied in part with 242 by agreeing peace with Egypt and Jordan leaving only Syria and Lebanon. They have also relinquished their hold over land occupied in the 6 day war and negotiated secure borders.


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> There are very few people that willing accept the suffering, pain, and humiliation, as are the Palestinian in pursuit of their brand of justice.  Over and over again, they have chosen force and violence over peaceful means and the Rule of Law.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, the Palestinians have withstood everything Israel has imposed on them and they will absorb the pain as they have for 65 years...They will pursue their claims at the UN and wait out Israel until hell freezes over.
> 
> Its Israel's move: get out of the 67 pre-emptive land-grab or stay in a war of attrition with her all neighbors...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, the Palestinians opened the conflict in 1948, and were instrumental in the perpetuation of the conflict for more than half a century.  But in doing so, what contribution have they made to the advancement and prosperity of their culture; the Arab Palestinian.  How much better-off today are the Palestinians than what they would have been if they had joined in peace with the implementation of the Resolution.  And in being in conflict, how much better-off will they tomorrow, next week, next year, a decade from now, in their choice to actively continue the conflict?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




 The Palestinians consistently refuse to abide by the UN resolutions so they only have themselves to blame. They prefer war and bloodshed to peace and prosperity because they know if they choose peace there is a heavy price to pay, one they cant afford. They are losing ground and support every single day and soon wont have anything left but a surrounded gaza and dead bodies piling up in the streets from disease and starvation.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> The joint cooperation and mutual compromise in the interest of peace is NOT same thing as surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...
> 
> Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...
> 
> As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?
> 
> The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Resistance for a thousand years, only sets the Palestinian back a thousand years.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...




 Read 242 and see just what they have, and they have squat. So it is up to them to bite the bullet and take the chance on an honourable deal. But remember they have a track record of failed ceasefires and double dealing to live down to, and no one believes they have any integrity. The UN deliberations on 242 spell it out they have nothing, and Israel can refuse to meet with them and just deal with the 4 nations on its borders. At this time it is 2 down and 2 to go, get them last 2 and the Palestinians only have gaza


----------



## Phoenall

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> The History of Palestine proves Occupiers are always ultimately driven out of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> The joint cooperation and mutual compromise in the interest of peace is NOT same thing as surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea of ending the conflict is surrender to Israeli demands by acquiescing to their illegal annexations in the 67 pre-emptive land grab...
> 
> Not going to happen...Resistance will continue for a thousand years if need be, that's how the Arabs have defeated technologically superior military forces in the past...
> 
> As far as they blah blah blah did not accept an invasion...who wouldn't fight to defend their homes?
> 
> The colonists cause you support is an anachronism in Human Development. Israel needs to be accepted if she does good deeds not steal land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Resistance for a thousand years, only sets the Palestinian back a thousand years.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Reaf 242 and what it actually says, and you see that the occupiers are the HoAP


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh??? What excuse are you talking about? He's stating a fact.
> 
> I notice you always ignore Israels declaration of independence. You never mention it, and when someone else does, you change the subject or say something not related to it. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.
> 
> *Correct as it goes against the UN charter, but it could have declared on the land allocated under the partition plan*
> 
> Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.
> *The defined territory was that allocated by the partition  plan that went out the window as soon as the HoAP attacked Israel with the intention of stealing the land and ethnically cleansing it of the Jews. So the only maps are those of 1947 and the partition plan, blame your heros for that*
> When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> *WHY DO YOU LIE the agreements mention Israel but not Palestine. No Palestinian borders are even mentioned and the maps show this to be a fact*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note the colours that define the 1948 map of Israel and the 1949 armistice lines, or green line.*
> So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Just done so and now you will have to shut up with your FILTHY ANTI SEMITIC NAZI LIES*
Click to expand...


So, what does your map show. It is a *map of Palestine* with the *proposes borders* of resolution 181 and the *1949 UN armistice lines.*

The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.

Of the three players in the game, *not one* has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.

As for the 1949 UN armistice lines:



> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



Those are de facto borders. Not even Israel recognizes them as its legal borders. Of course the armistice lines are irrelevant to Palestine's 1948 declaration because they were not imposed until 1949.

When I stated that Palestine's declaration of independence did not encroach on anyone else'e territory, I was correct.

The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.
> 
> *Correct as it goes against the UN charter, but it could have declared on the land allocated under the partition plan*
> 
> Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.
> *The defined territory was that allocated by the partition  plan that went out the window as soon as the HoAP attacked Israel with the intention of stealing the land and ethnically cleansing it of the Jews. So the only maps are those of 1947 and the partition plan, blame your heros for that*
> When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> *WHY DO YOU LIE the agreements mention Israel but not Palestine. No Palestinian borders are even mentioned and the maps show this to be a fact*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note the colours that define the 1948 map of Israel and the 1949 armistice lines, or green line.*
> So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just done so and now you will have to shut up with your FILTHY ANTI SEMITIC NAZI LIES*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what does your map show. It is a *map of Palestine* with the *proposes borders* of resolution 181 and the *1949 UN armistice lines.*
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, *not one* has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> As for the 1949 UN armistice lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are de facto borders. Not even Israel recognizes them as its legal borders. Of course the armistice lines are irrelevant to Palestine's 1948 declaration because they were not imposed until 1949.
> 
> When I stated that Palestine's declaration of independence did not encroach on anyone else'e territory, I was correct.
> 
> The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Absolutely NOTHING that you said has any meaning whatsoever. I have no idea what you're trying to prove. 

*The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless*

LOL I can only laugh at this comment. How can one people declare independence on land that has already legally been declared independent by another people?
The so called 1948 DOI by the Palestinians was meaningless, which is why they declared in dependence in 1988. When will you understand that the DOI by the Palestinians in 1948 DID NOTHING FOR THEM

                    Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

_After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. *Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine.* *A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created* and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict._

As for resolution 181 being meaningless, would you like me to bring up the several links that say otherwise....AGAIN ??


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.
> 
> *Correct as it goes against the UN charter, but it could have declared on the land allocated under the partition plan*
> 
> Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.
> *The defined territory was that allocated by the partition  plan that went out the window as soon as the HoAP attacked Israel with the intention of stealing the land and ethnically cleansing it of the Jews. So the only maps are those of 1947 and the partition plan, blame your heros for that*
> When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> *WHY DO YOU LIE the agreements mention Israel but not Palestine. No Palestinian borders are even mentioned and the maps show this to be a fact*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note the colours that define the 1948 map of Israel and the 1949 armistice lines, or green line.*
> So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just done so and now you will have to shut up with your FILTHY ANTI SEMITIC NAZI LIES*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what does your map show. It is a *map of Palestine* with the *proposes borders* of resolution 181 and the *1949 UN armistice lines.*
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, *not one* has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> As for the 1949 UN armistice lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are de facto borders. Not even Israel recognizes them as its legal borders. Of course the armistice lines are irrelevant to Palestine's 1948 declaration because they were not imposed until 1949.
> 
> When I stated that Palestine's declaration of independence did not encroach on anyone else'e territory, I was correct.
> 
> The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless.
Click to expand...




 So does this mean I can declare your area of the US a new state and run you of my new property.

 181 was very explicit in saying that the groups involved had to declare to the partition plan borders, or their declaration would be refused. So as soon as the HoAP declared they were kicked into touch for trying to gain land by force of arms. The interim borders of the two states were declared at the same time as Israel's declaration of independence and the HoAP could not declare Israel as their nation

 Or do you want to rewrite International Law to remove all of Israel's rights ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I ignore Israel's declaration of independence? I have heard about it a gazillion times. More recently it is that Israel declared independence before Palestine so Palestine's declaration does not count. Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel.
> 
> *Correct as it goes against the UN charter, but it could have declared on the land allocated under the partition plan*
> 
> Herein lies the problem. One of the tenets of a state is a defined territory. When I ask where this defined territory is, nobody knows. When I ask for a 1948 map of Israel, nobody can find one.
> *The defined territory was that allocated by the partition  plan that went out the window as soon as the HoAP attacked Israel with the intention of stealing the land and ethnically cleansing it of the Jews. So the only maps are those of 1947 and the partition plan, blame your heros for that*
> When I look in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine is mentioned many times. Israel is not mentioned. Palestine's international borders are mentioned. No borders are mentioned for Israel.
> 
> *WHY DO YOU LIE the agreements mention Israel but not Palestine. No Palestinian borders are even mentioned and the maps show this to be a fact*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note the colours that define the 1948 map of Israel and the 1949 armistice lines, or green line.*
> So, when people say that Palestine cannot declare independence on land already claimed by Israel they can't post anything to show their statement to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just done so and now you will have to shut up with your FILTHY ANTI SEMITIC NAZI LIES*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what does your map show. It is a *map of Palestine* with the *proposes borders* of resolution 181 and the *1949 UN armistice lines.*
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, *not one* has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> As for the 1949 UN armistice lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are de facto borders. Not even Israel recognizes them as its legal borders. Of course the armistice lines are irrelevant to Palestine's 1948 declaration because they were not imposed until 1949.
> 
> When I stated that Palestine's declaration of independence did not encroach on anyone else'e territory, I was correct.
> 
> The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless.
Click to expand...




 Wrong as it is a map of the remainder of Palestine with the partition plan borders on it. You see every time you forget that when the mandate was first formed Palestine was 5 times the size it was in 1948, and was split up into arab muslim states.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just done so and now you will have to shut up with your FILTHY ANTI SEMITIC NAZI LIES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does your map show. It is a *map of Palestine* with the *proposes borders* of resolution 181 and the *1949 UN armistice lines.*
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, *not one* has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> As for the 1949 UN armistice lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are de facto borders. Not even Israel recognizes them as its legal borders. Of course the armistice lines are irrelevant to Palestine's 1948 declaration because they were not imposed until 1949.
> 
> When I stated that Palestine's declaration of independence did not encroach on anyone else'e territory, I was correct.
> 
> The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * So does this mean I can declare your area of the US a new state and run you of my new property.*
> 
> 181 was very explicit in saying that the groups involved had to declare to the partition plan borders, or their declaration would be refused. So as soon as the HoAP declared they were kicked into touch for trying to gain land by force of arms. The interim borders of the two states were declared at the same time as Israel's declaration of independence and the HoAP could not declare Israel as their nation
> 
> Or do you want to rewrite International Law to remove all of Israel's rights ?
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything like that.

I am not rewriting anything.

You did not refute any of my points.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does your map show. It is a *map of Palestine* with the *proposes borders* of resolution 181 and the *1949 UN armistice lines.*
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, *not one* has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> As for the 1949 UN armistice lines:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are de facto borders. Not even Israel recognizes them as its legal borders. Of course the armistice lines are irrelevant to Palestine's 1948 declaration because they were not imposed until 1949.
> 
> When I stated that Palestine's declaration of independence did not encroach on anyone else'e territory, I was correct.
> 
> The excuse that Israel declared first is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * So does this mean I can declare your area of the US a new state and run you of my new property.*
> 
> 181 was very explicit in saying that the groups involved had to declare to the partition plan borders, or their declaration would be refused. So as soon as the HoAP declared they were kicked into touch for trying to gain land by force of arms. The interim borders of the two states were declared at the same time as Israel's declaration of independence and the HoAP could not declare Israel as their nation
> 
> Or do you want to rewrite International Law to remove all of Israel's rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything like that.
> 
> I am not rewriting anything.
> 
> You did not refute any of my points.
Click to expand...




 You said that the HoAP declared to the international borders of Palestine, meaning they were trying to steal land from Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. This is contrary to the UN charter, it was also contrary to UN res 181. The Jews had already declared their intentions of creating a nation within the 181 proposed borders, this was taken out of their hands by the invasion of Israel a sovereign nation by the HoAP.  As far as the UN and Israel are concerned Israel implemented res 181 in its entirety, it was the HoAP that refused. If you read it properly you see that it does not take both sides to agree for it to be implemented.

 You then went on to say that HoAP had the right to declare land that was never theirs as Palestine thus rewriting International Law in your favour.

 Which 3 players are these then as the UN, Egypt, Jordan and Israel accept the international borders of Israel as de facto and de jure. The Palestinians are not in contention as they have refused to treat the matter with anything but disdain.


 So until you can produce a legal document that says that Palestine is the rightful owners of the land and that Israel and the UN are stealing from them by force then you are just blowing in the wind.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

I, as well, have a Sicilian heritage (being 2d Generation Ito-Americano) on my Grandfather's side (my Grandmother was from Majorca).


			
				Michael J. Fox said:
			
		

> Family is not an important thing. It's everything.





pbel said:


> My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.


*(COMMENT)*

I would never suggest that the Palestinian should cringe or retreat defensively in fear.  But to achieve balance in the relationship, to acquire peace, prosperity and security for family and friends --- village, city and nation, one must act in their best interest (_Vires et honestas_).  Every day - "we" are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of our families; including the Palestinian.  

Who are you? 
What do you believe?  
What are your core values?
To purposely retard the advancement of family and friends --- village, city and nation, is not the honorable action of those who hold the integrity for effective governance and social welfare of their people first.  Yes, sometimes it is necessary to fight, but conflict is the method of last resort.  And to prolong a conflict, with no reasonable expectation of a positive outcome in the foreseeable future is folly.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> * So does this mean I can declare your area of the US a new state and run you of my new property.*
> 
> 181 was very explicit in saying that the groups involved had to declare to the partition plan borders, or their declaration would be refused. So as soon as the HoAP declared they were kicked into touch for trying to gain land by force of arms. The interim borders of the two states were declared at the same time as Israel's declaration of independence and the HoAP could not declare Israel as their nation
> 
> Or do you want to rewrite International Law to remove all of Israel's rights ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything like that.
> 
> I am not rewriting anything.
> 
> You did not refute any of my points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * You said that the HoAP declared to the international borders of Palestine, meaning they were trying to steal land from Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.* This is contrary to the UN charter, it was also contrary to UN res 181. The Jews had already declared their intentions of creating a nation within the 181 proposed borders, this was taken out of their hands by the invasion of Israel a sovereign nation by the HoAP.  As far as the UN and Israel are concerned Israel implemented res 181 in its entirety, it was the HoAP that refused. If you read it properly you see that it does not take both sides to agree for it to be implemented.
Click to expand...

Did you read what you said?

Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.



> You then went on to say that HoAP had the right to declare land that was never theirs as Palestine thus rewriting International Law in your favour.


I never said that.



> Which 3 players are these then as the UN, Egypt, Jordan and Israel accept the international borders of Israel as de facto and de jure. The Palestinians are not in contention as they have refused to treat the matter with anything but disdain.


The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.

Pay attention.



> So until you can produce a legal document that says that Palestine is the rightful owners of the land and that Israel and the UN are stealing from them by force then you are just blowing in the wind.


Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.

That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> I, as well, have a Sicilian heritage (being 2d Generation Ito-Americano) on my Grandfather's side (my Grandmother was from Majorca).
> 
> 
> 
> Michael J. Fox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family is not an important thing. It's everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I would never suggest that the Palestinian should cringe or retreat defensively in fear.  But to achieve balance in the relationship, to acquire peace, prosperity and security for family and friends --- village, city and nation, one must act in their best interest (_Vires et honestas_).  Every day - "we" are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of our families; including the Palestinian.
> 
> Who are you?
> What do you believe?
> What are your core values?
> To purposely retard the advancement of family and friends --- village, city and nation, is not the honorable action of those who hold the integrity for effective governance and social welfare of their people first.  Yes, sometimes it is necessary to fight, but conflict is the method of last resort.  And to prolong a conflict, with no reasonable expectation of a positive outcome in the foreseeable future is folly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.

This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action against their enemies. 

That is my fear for the future, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

This is always a "big" maybe.  Nothing is for sure in love and war.



pbel said:


> Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.


*(COMMENT)*

While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured.  The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors _(Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi)_ see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful.  There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population.  Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that.  But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts.  Today we see a sample of them in Syria.  No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.[ame="http://youtu.be/d-80YF1GZYQ"]extremist haven[/ame]


pbel said:


> This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action ageist their enemies.


*(COMMENT)*

The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally.  It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.



pbel said:


> That is my fear for the future, mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.


*(COMMENT)*

Maybe!  But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements.  They would be destroyed; totally.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything like that.
> 
> I am not rewriting anything.
> 
> You did not refute any of my points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * You said that the HoAP declared to the international borders of Palestine, meaning they were trying to steal land from Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.* This is contrary to the UN charter, it was also contrary to UN res 181. The Jews had already declared their intentions of creating a nation within the 181 proposed borders, this was taken out of their hands by the invasion of Israel a sovereign nation by the HoAP.  As far as the UN and Israel are concerned Israel implemented res 181 in its entirety, it was the HoAP that refused. If you read it properly you see that it does not take both sides to agree for it to be implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read what you said?
> 
> Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.
> 
> *Will a map help you think more clearly, one of the actual mandate of Palestine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The orange and lime green parts are the actual extent of the mandate for Palestine and that is the International borders you keep using*.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which 3 players are these then as the UN, Egypt, Jordan and Israel accept the international borders of Israel as de facto and de jure. The Palestinians are not in contention as they have refused to treat the matter with anything but disdain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.
> 
> Pay attention.
> 
> *So were are Palestine mentioned in 181, 242 and 338*
> 
> 
> 
> So until you can produce a legal document that says that Palestine is the rightful owners of the land and that Israel and the UN are stealing from them by force then you are just blowing in the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.
> 
> That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.
Click to expand...


See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.

 You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.

 Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> I, as well, have a Sicilian heritage (being 2d Generation Ito-Americano) on my Grandfather's side (my Grandmother was from Majorca).
> 
> 
> 
> Michael J. Fox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family is not an important thing. It's everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I would never suggest that the Palestinian should cringe or retreat defensively in fear.  But to achieve balance in the relationship, to acquire peace, prosperity and security for family and friends --- village, city and nation, one must act in their best interest (_Vires et honestas_).  Every day - "we" are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of our families; including the Palestinian.
> 
> Who are you?
> What do you believe?
> What are your core values?
> To purposely retard the advancement of family and friends --- village, city and nation, is not the honorable action of those who hold the integrity for effective governance and social welfare of their people first.  Yes, sometimes it is necessary to fight, but conflict is the method of last resort.  And to prolong a conflict, with no reasonable expectation of a positive outcome in the foreseeable future is folly.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.
> 
> This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action against their enemies.
> 
> That is my fear for the future, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.
Click to expand...




 Using the threat of greater firepower whether it be numbers or weapons just results in more destructive weapons being developed. Can the HoAP afford to have its population reduced to cabbages, with no one to tend to their needs, by a doomsday weapon. because that is what will happen, no destruction of the buildings and land but complete and utter devastation of the people. A standard H.E. charge shaped to send out a high intensity shock wave that will turn people to jelly, or a sonic weapon that scrambles the brain. Before that happens the HoAP will run out of food and accommodation and the extra mouths will be dying in the streets of disease and starvation. The world will quarantine the area and wait for the holocaust to run its course, then the few survivors will have to sue for peace or face extinction.


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> This is always a "big" maybe.  Nothing is for sure in love and war.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured.  The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors _(Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi)_ see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful.  There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population.  Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that.  But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts.  Today we see a sample of them in Syria.  No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.[ame="http://youtu.be/d-80YF1GZYQ"]extremist haven[/ame]
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action ageist their enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally.  It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my fear for the future, mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Maybe!  But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements.  They would be destroyed; totally.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




 It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam     India and Israel.   India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> This is always a "big" maybe.  Nothing is for sure in love and war.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured.  The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors _(Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi)_ see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful.  There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population.  Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that.  But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts.  Today we see a sample of them in Syria.  No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.[ame="http://youtu.be/d-80YF1GZYQ"]extremist haven[/ame]
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally.  It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my fear for the future, mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Maybe!  But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements.  They would be destroyed; totally.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam     India and Israel.   India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.
Click to expand...


There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, _et al,_

Pakistan is a extremist nation; but, with lucid moments.



Phoenall said:


> It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam     India and Israel.   India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.


*(COMMENT)*

It would be destroyed and they know it.  We can save that for another discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.



pbel said:


> There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.


*(COMMENT)*

And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> This is always a "big" maybe.  Nothing is for sure in love and war.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured.  The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors _(Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi)_ see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful.  There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population.  Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that.  But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts.  Today we see a sample of them in Syria.  No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.extremist haven
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally.  It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Maybe!  But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements.  They would be destroyed; totally.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam     India and Israel.   India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.
Click to expand...





 Of course they are commanded by their Koran to do so, the Indians are just stopping them from stealing more land.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Sure, the world powers will attack to save Israel....You are really dreaming.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> This is always a "big" maybe.  Nothing is for sure in love and war.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured.  The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors _(Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi)_ see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful.  There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population.  Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that.  But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts.  Today we see a sample of them in Syria.  No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.extremist haven
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally.  It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Maybe!  But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements.  They would be destroyed; totally.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam     India and Israel.   India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.
Click to expand...


That's because most citizens in the ISlamic Republic of Pakistan are Muslim, and they want the entire Middle East to be Muslim. If Israel was another Arab/Muslim state, but everything in its history was the same, Pakistan (and many other countries) would not have that opinion about Israel. And you know I'm right


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, the world powers will attack to save Israel....You are really dreaming.
Click to expand...


Huh?? Are you sure you're responding to the right post ?


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

No!



pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, the world powers will attack to save Israel....You are really dreaming.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If a Islamic Fundamentalist Nation were able to intimidate one country, it could intimidate any country --- all countries.  It doesn't matter whether it is Israel or not.  To allow such a threat to exist would be totally unacceptable.  It would be the end of that country and the people that chose to exercise their destiny in that fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

RoccoR said:


> _If a Islamic Fundamentalist Nation were able to intimidate one country, it could intimidate any country --- all countries.  It doesn't matter whether it is Israel or not.  To allow such a threat to exist would be totally unacceptable.  It would be the end of that country and the people that chose to exercise their destiny in that fashion..._


Agreed.

Christendom (including the Russias, Europe, the Americas and Oceania) - a.k.a. the secularized West and friends and associates - will never allow a resurrected Militant Islam to threaten to establish a global Caliphate - and will act both individually and in-concert to suppress even the fist baby-steps towards such a state of affairs.

Collectively, and even subconsciously, the world remembers what Islam was like when it had the upper hand as a regional or global conquering power, and that will not be tolerated again.

Best to step on the head of the viper before it grows into something dangerous.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> * You said that the HoAP declared to the international borders of Palestine, meaning they were trying to steal land from Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.* This is contrary to the UN charter, it was also contrary to UN res 181. The Jews had already declared their intentions of creating a nation within the 181 proposed borders, this was taken out of their hands by the invasion of Israel a sovereign nation by the HoAP.  As far as the UN and Israel are concerned Israel implemented res 181 in its entirety, it was the HoAP that refused. If you read it properly you see that it does not take both sides to agree for it to be implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what you said?
> 
> Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.
> 
> *Will a map help you think more clearly, one of the actual mandate of Palestine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The orange and lime green parts are the actual extent of the mandate for Palestine and that is the International borders you keep using*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> 
> The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.
> 
> Pay attention.
> 
> *So were are Palestine mentioned in 181, 242 and 338*
> 
> 
> 
> So until you can produce a legal document that says that Palestine is the rightful owners of the land and that Israel and the UN are stealing from them by force then you are just blowing in the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.
> 
> That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.
> 
> You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.
> 
> Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.
Click to expand...


Here is a map of Palestine that includes the proposed partinion plan borders that never happened.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Who said it never happened?



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what you said?
> 
> Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.
> 
> *Will a map help you think more clearly, one of the actual mandate of Palestine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The orange and lime green parts are the actual extent of the mandate for Palestine and that is the International borders you keep using*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> 
> The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.
> 
> Pay attention.
> 
> *So were are Palestine mentioned in 181, 242 and 338*
> 
> Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.
> 
> That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.
> 
> You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.
> 
> Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a map of Palestine that includes the proposed partinion plan borders that never happened.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Surely you must be listening to the Arabs.  Because the UN says otherwise?



			
				PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
			
		

> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948



Are you saying the UN is wrong?  Or is this your interpretation of the events as you want them to have happened?

The Arabs can reject their offer, but they cannot withhold the right of self-determination from the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Who said it never happened?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What map?
> 
> 
> 
> See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.
> 
> You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.
> 
> Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a map of Palestine that includes the proposed partinion plan borders that never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Surely you must be listening to the Arabs.  Because the UN says otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the UN is wrong?  Or is this your interpretation of the events as you want them to have happened?
> 
> The Arabs can reject their offer, but they cannot withhold the right of self-determination from the Jewish People.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Here is what I said.



> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, not one has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.



What part is incorrect?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.



P F Tinmore said:


> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, not one has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part is incorrect?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*


The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them.  As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.


Resolution 181 was never implemented.
The Arab portion was not implemented.  
The Jerusalem Portion was not implemented.  
The Israeli portion (Jewish State) was implemented per the UNPC and Declaration of Independence.


The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders.
None of the Resolution 181(II) boundaries existed long and have been overtaken by military operations.  Thus, the UN considered them altered by the conflict and established the Armistice Lines as the demarcation, instead of a border.  If you prefer, you may refer to them as an International Demarcation Line; if that makes you feel better.  They have the same recognition as a border.  Now what the Palestinians choose to recognize is up to them; at their own risk.
Under the Rule of Law, "every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect."



The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders.
The Palestinians don't recognize anything dealing with Israel.  However they consistently lost more and more control over potential sovereign territory.  They need the controversy to sustain their argument.  But if one compares the pre-war partition to the 1949 Armistice lines, one can easily see that the Palestinians lost territory to permanent Israeli control.


Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
What Israel claims, it controls.  Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank.  The borders and boundaries that were once in play (by Resolution 181), fell victim to Arab external interference and armed aggression.  Israel has pretty stable international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.  They are formally recognized by treaty.  Lebanon has a stable boundary, with a couple disputes, that are challenged only by Hezbollah insurgents and terrorists.  The Golan Heights are problematic for both Syria and Israel.


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> 
> Of the three players in the game, not one has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part is incorrect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
> They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them.  As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.
Click to expand...

Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.



> Resolution 181 was never implemented.
> The Arab portion was not implemented.
> The Jerusalem Portion was not implemented.
> The Israeli portion (Jewish State) was implemented per the UNPC and Declaration of Independence.


The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.



> The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders.
> None of the Resolution 181(II) boundaries existed long and have been overtaken by military operations.  *Thus, the UN considered them altered by the conflict* and established the Armistice Lines as the demarcation, instead of a border.  If you prefer, you may refer to them as an International Demarcation Line; if that makes you feel better.  They have the same recognition as a border.  Now what the Palestinians choose to recognize is up to them; at their own risk.
> Under the Rule of Law, "every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect."


I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?

Armistice lines do not define any land or states.



> The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders.
> The Palestinians don't recognize anything dealing with Israel.  However they consistently lost more and more* control* over potential sovereign territory.  They need the controversy to sustain their argument.  But if one compares the pre-war partition to the 1949 Armistice lines, one can easily see that the Palestinians lost territory to permanent Israeli *control.*


Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.



> Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> What Israel claims, it controls.  Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank.  The borders and boundaries that were once in play (by Resolution 181), fell victim to Arab external interference and armed aggression.  Israel has pretty stable international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.  They are formally recognized by treaty.  Lebanon has a stable boundary, with a couple disputes, that are challenged only by Hezbollah insurgents and terrorists.  The Golan Heights are problematic for both Syria and Israel.


I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part is incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
> They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them.  As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?
> 
> Armistice lines do not define any land or states.
> 
> 
> Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
> What Israel claims, it controls.  Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank.  The borders and boundaries that were once in play (by Resolution 181), fell victim to Arab external interference and armed aggression.  Israel has pretty stable international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan.  They are formally recognized by treaty.  Lebanon has a stable boundary, with a couple disputes, that are challenged only by Hezbollah insurgents and terrorists.  The Golan Heights are problematic for both Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


* Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration*

You're a liar. They were BOTH attacking each other. The Jewish residents (with European Zionists in the mix) vs. the Arab residents (with Arab soldiers coming in from surrounding countries to help)

You need to stop distorting history if you want the little bit of credibility you have left to remain intact


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
> They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them.  As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?
> 
> Armistice lines do not define any land or states.
> 
> 
> Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.
> 
> 
> I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration*
> 
> You're a liar. They were BOTH attacking each other. The Jewish residents (with European Zionists in the mix) vs. the Arab residents (with Arab soldiers coming in from surrounding countries to help)
> 
> You need to stop distorting history if you want the little bit of credibility you have left to remain intact
Click to expand...


And nobody was attacking anyone before the Zionist invasion.

You have to place the blame where the blame is due.


----------



## pbel

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?
> 
> Armistice lines do not define any land or states.
> 
> 
> Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.
> 
> 
> I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration*
> 
> You're a liar. They were BOTH attacking each other. The Jewish residents (with European Zionists in the mix) vs. the Arab residents (with Arab soldiers coming in from surrounding countries to help)
> 
> You need to stop distorting history if you want the little bit of credibility you have left to remain intact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nobody was attacking anyone before the Zionist invasion.
> 
> You have to place the blame where the blame is due.
Click to expand...


I was just thinking that...However, it wasn't the Zionist presence (Or Jews in Palestine) that created the problem, It was the Zionist intent of creating a Jewish State out of their homes...After all Jews lived amongst the Islamists for thousands of years...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?
> 
> Armistice lines do not define any land or states.
> 
> 
> Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.
> 
> 
> I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration*
> 
> You're a liar. They were BOTH attacking each other. The Jewish residents (with European Zionists in the mix) vs. the Arab residents (with Arab soldiers coming in from surrounding countries to help)
> 
> You need to stop distorting history if you want the little bit of credibility you have left to remain intact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nobody was attacking anyone before the Zionist invasion.
> 
> You have to place the blame where the blame is due.
Click to expand...


Invasion lol!

Go back to school and get your vocabulary in tact. You really sound like a Palestinian  Jihadist. 

How many time do we have to tell you that it was not an INVASION. The European Jews were INVITED by the RULERS OF THE LAND. Their immigration was FASCILITATED by the BRITISH. 

Why does this have to be explained to you over and over and over.

Now, back to the topic, your statement that the Jews attacks Palestinians before Israels declaration is a bullshit statement. Either you are lying, or you have zero knowledge of the events leading up to Israels declaration (mainly between 1936-1947)

Where do you get you information from concerning these events?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration*
> 
> You're a liar. They were BOTH attacking each other. The Jewish residents (with European Zionists in the mix) vs. the Arab residents (with Arab soldiers coming in from surrounding countries to help)
> 
> You need to stop distorting history if you want the little bit of credibility you have left to remain intact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody was attacking anyone before the Zionist invasion.
> 
> You have to place the blame where the blame is due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion lol!
> 
> Go back to school and get your vocabulary in tact. You really sound like a Palestinian  Jihadist.
> 
> How many time do we have to tell you that it was not an INVASION. The European Jews were INVITED by the RULERS OF THE LAND. Their immigration was FASCILITATED by the BRITISH.
> 
> Why does this have to be explained to you over and over and over.
> 
> Now, back to the topic, your statement that the Jews attacks Palestinians before Israels declaration is a bullshit statement. Either you are lying, or you have zero knowledge of the events leading up to Israels declaration (mainly between 1936-1947)
> 
> Where do you get you information from concerning these events?
Click to expand...


You need to read up.

And get off those Israeli propaganda sites.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And nobody was attacking anyone before the Zionist invasion.
> 
> You have to place the blame where the blame is due.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion lol!
> 
> Go back to school and get your vocabulary in tact. You really sound like a Palestinian  Jihadist.
> 
> How many time do we have to tell you that it was not an INVASION. The European Jews were INVITED by the RULERS OF THE LAND. Their immigration was FASCILITATED by the BRITISH.
> 
> Why does this have to be explained to you over and over and over.
> 
> Now, back to the topic, your statement that the Jews attacks Palestinians before Israels declaration is a bullshit statement. Either you are lying, or you have zero knowledge of the events leading up to Israels declaration (mainly between 1936-1947)
> 
> Where do you get you information from concerning these events?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> And get off those Israeli propaganda sites.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought, you cannot argue my FACTUAL points

And I don't get ANY of my information from propaganda sites.

I showed me where I got my information from concerning events leading up to Israels declaration, but you haven't because you're too scare that I'm going to find information in those links that contradict what you say.

Telling ME that I need to read up on it. No offense, but that's extremely funny coming from you. 

So, are you EVER going o show me where you get you information from ??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion lol!
> 
> Go back to school and get your vocabulary in tact. You really sound like a Palestinian  Jihadist.
> 
> *How many time do we have to tell you that it was not an INVASION. The European Jews were INVITED by the RULERS OF THE LAND. Their immigration was FASCILITATED by the BRITISH. *
> 
> Why does this have to be explained to you over and over and over.
> 
> Now, back to the topic, your statement that the Jews attacks Palestinians before Israels declaration is a bullshit statement. Either you are lying, or you have zero knowledge of the events leading up to Israels declaration (mainly between 1936-1947)
> 
> Where do you get you information from concerning these events?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> And get off those Israeli propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, you cannot argue my FACTUAL points
> 
> And I don't get ANY of my information from propaganda sites.
> 
> I showed me where I got my information from concerning events leading up to Israels declaration, but you haven't because you're too scare that I'm going to find information in those links that contradict what you say.
> 
> Telling ME that I need to read up on it. No offense, but that's extremely funny coming from you.
> 
> So, are you EVER going o show me where you get you information from ??
Click to expand...


So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.

Well then, that makes it OK.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> And get off those Israeli propaganda sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, you cannot argue my FACTUAL points
> 
> And I don't get ANY of my information from propaganda sites.
> 
> I showed me where I got my information from concerning events leading up to Israels declaration, but you haven't because you're too scare that I'm going to find information in those links that contradict what you say.
> 
> Telling ME that I need to read up on it. No offense, but that's extremely funny coming from you.
> 
> So, are you EVER going o show me where you get you information from ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
Click to expand...


1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that. 

2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY. 

3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda

4) There was no country called Palestine during this time

5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)

6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, you cannot argue my FACTUAL points
> 
> And I don't get ANY of my information from propaganda sites.
> 
> I showed me where I got my information from concerning events leading up to Israels declaration, but you haven't because you're too scare that I'm going to find information in those links that contradict what you say.
> 
> Telling ME that I need to read up on it. No offense, but that's extremely funny coming from you.
> 
> So, are you EVER going o show me where you get you information from ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...


Really?? Again?? This??

You're so funny. You get owned in the previous argument concerning this issue, and the next time it comes up, you pretend it never happened. 


When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well...



P F Tinmore said:


> Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.


*(AND)*


P F Tinmore said:


> I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?


*(COMMENT)*



			
				Para 3 - 54. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (continued) said:
			
		

> A decision to admit Israel at the present session would entail serious consequences in still another field: that of the delimitation of the territorial boundaries of the new State. *It would be remembered that the 1947 Assembly resolution had allotted the whole of Western Galilee and the Arab towns of Jaffa, Lydda and Ramleh, as well as other Arab areas, to the proposed Arab State*. However, the State of Israel now controlled all those territories and there was every indication that the Israeli authorities had no intention of giving them up. Immigrant Jews were being established there exactly as they were being settled in the rest of Israel. It was difficult to distinguish between what the authorities considered part of Israel and what they considered merely temporarily-occupied territory, if such a qualification existed at all in their thinking. *To admit Israel before it had given up territories which had not been allotted to it by the Assembly's decision was equivalent to giving it a blank cheque to draw its frontiers wherever it wished. In effect, it meant condoning, by a solemn act of the United Nations, the right of conquest.* Moreover, such a decision would be prejudicial to the negotiations on the demarcation of boundaries now in progress under the supervision of the Conciliation Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNSC Resolution 69 (1949). Resolution of 4 March 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Security Council,
> 
> Having received and considered the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> 1.	Decides in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly,
> 
> 2.	*Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel* to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> 
> Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
> 
> Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
> 
> Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
> 
> The General Assembly,
> 
> Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
> 
> 1.	Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
> 
> 2.	Decides to *admit Israel to membership* in the United Nations.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/273 (III)  11 May 1949
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ S/RES/69 (1949)  S/1277  4 March 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.24/SR.45  5 May 1949
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.


*(COMMENT)*



			
				Para 14 - 54. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (continued) said:
			
		

> The General Assembly had to determine first of all the criterion on which to base its decision to admit Israel. Ordinarily, applicant States were merely required to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter. *However, in so far as Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II)),* the Assembly had first to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State in its present structure conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.24/SR.45  5 May 1949





P F Tinmore said:


> Armistice lines do not define any land or states.


*(COMMENT)*

That is correct.  An Armistice Line (a form of Demarcation Line) separate belligerents.  The separation was Israel from Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria!  NOT Palestine.  The Palestinian had no recognized country.



P F Tinmore said:


> Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.


*(COMMENT)*

No, there was no recognized occupation of Palestine (it wasn't a country).  It was allotted land to Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?


*(COMMENT)*

Very good.  As I said:  "Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...



_After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. *A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*_

http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142


----------



## P F Tinmore

Roccor said:
			
		

> No, there was no recognized occupation of Palestine (it wasn't a country).



Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. *A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*_
> 
> http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142
Click to expand...


Nice link.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. *A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*_
> 
> http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice link.
Click to expand...


I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.

Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Just as the link describes.



P F Tinmore said:


> Roccor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there was no recognized occupation of Palestine (it wasn't a country).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It was unincorporated, UN trustee territory allotted for the Arab State.  Although it is incorrect to say Jordan occupied it throughout.  The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were Annex.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.
> 
> Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
> 
> Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working


Israel took land, by force, that was not allotted to them in the Mandate.

That's the issue.

It wasn't their land then and it's not their land now.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.
> 
> Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
> 
> Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working
> 
> 
> 
> Israel took land, by force, that was not allotted to them in the Mandate.
> 
> That's the issue.
> 
> It wasn't their land then and it's not their land now.
Click to expand...


That's not the issue we're discussing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> _After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. *A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*_
> 
> http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.
> 
> Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
> 
> Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working
Click to expand...


I know. I was just jerking your chain.

Try this one. It is quite interesting.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> That's not the issue we're discussing.


It better not be the Lakers!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.
> 
> Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
> 
> Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. *I was just jerking your chain.*
> 
> Try this one. It is quite interesting.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


Thanks


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> _After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. *A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*_
> 
> http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3142
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.
> 
> Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
> 
> Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Sometimes you have to go to the International Humanitarian Resource Centre Publications - Diakonia link and download the "Easy Guide."

Vr
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw that the link didn't work. I copy pasted it before so I had it at hand. IT used to work, and in fact, it's the same link YOU have used many times.
> 
> Easy Guide to International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
> 
> Stop pretending like I or Rocco have never posted that paragraph with the link working
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. I was just jerking your chain.
> 
> Try this one. It is quite interesting.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...




Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the issue we're discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> It better not be the Lakers!
Click to expand...


Apparently Kobe Bryants parents were part of the Irgun. 

Now how do you like him ???


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Just as the link describes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roccor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there was no recognized occupation of Palestine (it wasn't a country).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was unincorporated, UN trustee territory allotted for the Arab State.  Although it is incorrect to say Jordan occupied it throughout.  The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were Annex.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Jordan attempted to annex the West bank but the world would not accept it.

What country did Egypt an Jordan occupy.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Just as the link describes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was unincorporated, UN trustee territory allotted for the Arab State.  Although it is incorrect to say Jordan occupied it throughout.  The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were Annex.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan attempted to annex the West bank but the world would not accept it.
> 
> What country did Egypt an Jordan occupy.
Click to expand...


There was no country to be occupied. Read his post again. 

Territory. Not country. Territory. Not country. Territory

Where did you read that the world would not accept it ??? I don't recall that


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Apparently Kobe Bryants parents were part of the Irgun.
> 
> Now how do you like him ???


Not funny.

We just got word today he'll be out another 3 to 5 weeks.


----------



## Lipush

P F Tinmore said:


> Roccor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there was no recognized occupation of Palestine (it wasn't a country).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?
Click to expand...


The land of Israel?


----------



## pbel

Lipush said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roccor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there was no recognized occupation of Palestine (it wasn't a country).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The land of Israel?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Lip, I guess in a sense you really explain the Zionist point of view, psychologically ingrained by religious belief...
> 
> 
> You really believe that despite a two thousand year absence from ancient Israel by the Jews, you retained ownership, and regaining it from other people is heaven sent despite the fact of your-own commandment of "Thou shall not steal."
> 
> It is a mass psychosis spread by religious malarkey that has put your people back into the bulls-eye of destruction for a future conflict in this sea of Islam...
> 
> Make peace now and hope for the best...You cannot defeat Islam on its own turf.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Make peace now and hope for the best_..."


The Israelis would be fools to do so. It would mean the death of their nation. Their opponents will settle for nothing less.



> "..._You cannot defeat Islam on its own turf_."


They can, if they're backed by most of Christendom (a.k.a. the secularized West), but, they don't really need to defeat Islam; just take back all of their old homeland, and to hold that.

Which they will.

A century from now, Israel will still be alive and kicking, stronger than ever, and the by-then scattered Palestinians will have been in Jordan and Lebanon for 2-3 generations, and disappear from history, except as a footnote in school textbooks.

There is no Arab Legion or Arab cavalry coming over the hill, next time, to save the mad-dog Palestinians from being evicted and expelled.

Militant Islam has already shot its wad for a generation or two - they've only been out from under Colonial Rule for a generation or two, and they're already at each others' throats again. They are their own worst enemies, which is why they were eventually subdued by European Colonialism in the first place.

The sky is not falling for the Israelis.

As a matter of fact, it shaping-up to be a blue-skies, wisps-of-white-clouds, sunny, balmy day for them, metaphorically speaking, and looking towards the foreseeable future.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Make peace now and hope for the best_..."
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis would be fools to do so. It would mean the death of their nation. Their opponents will settle for nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._You cannot defeat Islam on its own turf_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can, if they're backed by most of Christendom (a.k.a. the secularized West), but, they don't really need to defeat Islam; just take back all of their old homeland, and to hold that.
> 
> Which they will. A century from now, Israel will still be alive and kicking, stronger than ever, and the by-then scattered Palestinians will have been in Jordan and Lebanon for 2-3 generations, and disappear from history, except as a footnote in school textbooks.
> 
> There is no Arab Legion or Arab cavalry coming over the hill, next time, to save the mad-dog Palestinians from being evicted and expelled.
> 
> Militant Islam has already shot its wad for a generation or two - they've only been out from under Colonial Rule for a generation or two, and they're already at each others' throats again.
Click to expand...


The ranting of desperation...It wont be horses coming over the hills, it will be rockets...the West is sick of Israeli war mongering and boycotts are now being imposed, they will never come to Israel's aid. They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._The ranting of desperation_..."


Desperation?

How so?

Personally, I'm not Jewish, nor tied to a Christian cult that focuses upon the return of the Jews as a harbinger of Armageddon. I look at the situation through cold, dispassionate eyes, in contemplating Israeli prospects.

Situationally, the Israelis are (and have been, for years) the strongest military power in the region; capable of holding off several of their Muslim neighbor-states simultaneously, even when those neighbors are in peak condition.

And those neighbors are now in a degenerate and impotent state, and will be for many years.

None of that sounds very 'desperate' to me.



> "..._It wont be horses coming over the hills, it will be rockets_..."


I don't know where those rockets will be coming from (_other than Uncle Achmed's Build-a-Rocket kits used by Hamas, et al_). Nothing serious to worry about.



> "..._the West is sick of Israeli war mongering_..."


Israel doesn't war-monger. Israel launches punitive expeditions and mini-wars when they have been on the recieving end of a suicide-bombing campaign or rocket-barrage for too long, and that's more a matter of self-defense than anything else.

If The West was truly sick of it, they would stop it, but they don't. Why? Because we like Jews better than we like Muslims - especially after 9-11 and the London Tube bombings.



> "..._and boycotts are now being imposed_..."


Pfffffttt... BDS is a 9-year-old Circus Flea that is going nowhere, fast. My aunt Martha is more of an economic threat to Israel than BDS and its kindred.



> "..._they will never come to Israel's aid_..."


A matter of speculative opinion. Personally, I believe differently.



> "..._They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews._"


Quite true.

Western support for Israel is part of a generations-long Penance that The West has given itself as a way to make-up for the Holocaust - in part, anyway.

Which is why we can expect Western support for Israel to continue for generations to come.


----------



## rhodescholar

pbel said:


> The ranting of desperation...It wont be horses coming over the hills, it will be rockets...the West is sick of Israeli war mongering and boycotts are now being imposed, they will never come to Israel's aid. They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews.



Keep dreaming of millions more murdered jews, you psychotic asshole.  The only ones supporting boycotts are the stormfront racist trash like yourself and arab muslim filth, who will soon be deported en masse from europe and the west.  Do assholes like you actually believe that Israel could not replace european trade, which involves less than 1/3 of israel's exports, with other countries in about 10 minutes?


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The ranting of desperation_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Personally, I'm not Jewish, nor tied to a Christian cult that focuses upon the return of the Jews as a harbinger of Armageddon. I look at the situation through cold, dispassionate eyes, in contemplating Israeli prospects.
> 
> Situationally, the Israelis are (and have been, for years) the strongest military power in the region; capable of holding off several of their Muslim neighbor-states simultaneously, even when those neighbors are in peak condition.
> 
> And those neighbors are now in a degenerate and impotent state, and will be for many years.
> 
> None of that sounds very 'desperate' to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._It wont be horses coming over the hills, it will be rockets_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where those rockets will be coming from (_other than Uncle Achmed's Build-a-Rocket kits used by Hamas, et al_). Nothing serious to worry about.
> 
> 
> Israel doesn't war-monger. Israel launches punitive expeditions and mini-wars when they have been on the recieving end of a suicide-bombing campaign or rocket-barrage for too long, and that's more a matter of self-defense than anything else.
> 
> If The West was truly sick of it, they would stop it, but they don't. Why? Because we like Jews better than we like Muslims - especially after 9-11 and the London Tube bombings.
> 
> 
> Pfffffttt... BDS is a 9-year-old Circus Flea that is going nowhere, fast. My aunt Martha is more of an economic threat to Israel than BDS and its kindred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._they will never come to Israel's aid_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A matter of speculative opinion. Personally, I believe differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> Western support for Israel is part of a generations-long Penance that The West has given itself as a way to make-up for the Holocaust - in part, anyway.
> 
> Which is why we can expect Western support for Israel to continue for generations to come.
Click to expand...


I agree, Israeli prospects look good for the near future, militarily...they lead the US congress and Federal officials like cows in a pasture with the most money contributions in history via AIPAC in America... But, America now oil independent, is withdrawing, because of the cost in money and blood.

Israel will become alone.


But the rest of the World dislikes Israel and her policies of land grabbing...they desperately need ME Oil over Israeli war mongering...Oil will win out.

Plus all those quarreling Arabs in the Arab Spring has produced a civil society that has supported Jihadists...Yes in a hundred years, Israel will control Erets Israel by force...That's about the time they will all have nukes...I see Armageddon and Allah and Yaweh the moon gods will separate the rest, if peace to the 67 borders is not made.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._if peace to the 67 borders is not made._"


The Palestinians, and, to a much lesser extent, Muslims at-large, will not be happy until Israel is wiped altogether from the map. Should the Israelis concede a reversion back to the 1967 borders prior to the Six Day War, they will be cutting their own throats, as that will merely be the first in a series of demands being made upon them. Show weakness in the midst of those Arab cutthroats and you're lost. Pulling back to the 1967 borders would be showing weakness, as well as not in keeping with the Israelis long-range goals to re-acquire all of Eretz Yisrael. And, if the Arabs want to press the point at some future date and they actually win, well, better to be killed as a bull rather than as a sheep.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The ranting of desperation_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Personally, I'm not Jewish, nor tied to a Christian cult that focuses upon the return of the Jews as a harbinger of Armageddon. I look at the situation through cold, dispassionate eyes, in contemplating Israeli prospects.
> 
> Situationally, the Israelis are (and have been, for years) the strongest military power in the region; capable of holding off several of their Muslim neighbor-states simultaneously, even when those neighbors are in peak condition.
> 
> And those neighbors are now in a degenerate and impotent state, and will be for many years.
> 
> None of that sounds very 'desperate' to me.
> 
> 
> I don't know where those rockets will be coming from (_other than Uncle Achmed's Build-a-Rocket kits used by Hamas, et al_). Nothing serious to worry about.
> 
> 
> Israel doesn't war-monger. Israel launches punitive expeditions and mini-wars when they have been on the recieving end of a suicide-bombing campaign or rocket-barrage for too long, and that's more a matter of self-defense than anything else.
> 
> If The West was truly sick of it, they would stop it, but they don't. Why? Because we like Jews better than we like Muslims - especially after 9-11 and the London Tube bombings.
> 
> 
> Pfffffttt... BDS is a 9-year-old Circus Flea that is going nowhere, fast. My aunt Martha is more of an economic threat to Israel than BDS and its kindred.
> 
> 
> A matter of speculative opinion. Personally, I believe differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> Western support for Israel is part of a generations-long Penance that The West has given itself as a way to make-up for the Holocaust - in part, anyway.
> 
> Which is why we can expect Western support for Israel to continue for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, Israeli prospects look good for the near future, militarily...they lead the US congress and Federal officials like cows in a pasture with the most money contributions in history via AIPAC in America... But, America now oil independent, is withdrawing, because of the cost in money and blood.
> 
> Israel will become alone.
> 
> 
> But the rest of the World dislikes Israel and her policies of land grabbing...they desperately need ME Oil over Israeli war mongering...Oil will win out.
> 
> Plus all those quarreling Arabs in the Arab Spring has produced a civil society that has supported Jihadists...Yes in a hundred years, Israel will control Erets Israel by force...That's about the time they will all have nukes...I see Armageddon and Allah and Yaweh the moon gods will separate the rest, if peace to the 67 borders is not made.
Click to expand...


The way I see it, Israel is already alone


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Personally, I'm not Jewish, nor tied to a Christian cult that focuses upon the return of the Jews as a harbinger of Armageddon. I look at the situation through cold, dispassionate eyes, in contemplating Israeli prospects.
> 
> Situationally, the Israelis are (and have been, for years) the strongest military power in the region; capable of holding off several of their Muslim neighbor-states simultaneously, even when those neighbors are in peak condition.
> 
> And those neighbors are now in a degenerate and impotent state, and will be for many years.
> 
> None of that sounds very 'desperate' to me.
> 
> 
> I don't know where those rockets will be coming from (_other than Uncle Achmed's Build-a-Rocket kits used by Hamas, et al_). Nothing serious to worry about.
> 
> 
> Israel doesn't war-monger. Israel launches punitive expeditions and mini-wars when they have been on the recieving end of a suicide-bombing campaign or rocket-barrage for too long, and that's more a matter of self-defense than anything else.
> 
> If The West was truly sick of it, they would stop it, but they don't. Why? Because we like Jews better than we like Muslims - especially after 9-11 and the London Tube bombings.
> 
> 
> Pfffffttt... BDS is a 9-year-old Circus Flea that is going nowhere, fast. My aunt Martha is more of an economic threat to Israel than BDS and its kindred.
> 
> 
> A matter of speculative opinion. Personally, I believe differently.
> 
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> Western support for Israel is part of a generations-long Penance that The West has given itself as a way to make-up for the Holocaust - in part, anyway.
> 
> Which is why we can expect Western support for Israel to continue for generations to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Israeli prospects look good for the near future, militarily...they lead the US congress and Federal officials like cows in a pasture with the most money contributions in history via AIPAC in America... But, America now oil independent, is withdrawing, because of the cost in money and blood.
> 
> Israel will become alone.
> 
> 
> But the rest of the World dislikes Israel and her policies of land grabbing...they desperately need ME Oil over Israeli war mongering...Oil will win out.
> 
> Plus all those quarreling Arabs in the Arab Spring has produced a civil society that has supported Jihadists...Yes in a hundred years, Israel will control Erets Israel by force...That's about the time they will all have nukes...I see Armageddon and Allah and Yaweh the moon gods will separate the rest, if peace to the 67 borders is not made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way I see it, Israel is already alone
Click to expand...


I honestly believe if an acceptable peace with Arab league blessing can turn things around...We all know the miracle of Economic prosperities ability to transform societies...

Israel at peace can make a huge Economic impact on the middle east and transform it into an Economic Oasis.

That would transform the view of the Jew, a co- religious brother who brought them a decent life.


----------



## GISMYS

"Satan trembles when he sees the weakest saint upon his knees.  
So...we pray. 

Psalm 107:28-30 Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was Egypt and Jordan occupying between 1949 and 1967?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The land of Israel?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Lip, I guess in a sense you really explain the Zionist point of view, psychologically ingrained by religious belief...
> 
> 
> You really believe that despite a two thousand year absence from ancient Israel by the Jews, you retained ownership, and regaining it from other people is heaven sent despite the fact of your-own commandment of "Thou shall not steal."
> 
> It is a mass psychosis spread by religious malarkey that has put your people back into the bulls-eye of destruction for a future conflict in this sea of Islam...
> 
> Make peace now and hope for the best...You cannot defeat Islam on its own turf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what about all the Jews that never left the land, the ones that you say did not have the right to declare a nation in 1948. No absence of the Jews for 2000 years at all, but there was an absence of arab muslim ownership from the beginning of the first millennium until the end of the mandate.
> 
> We beat islam on its own turf 3 or 4 times in the past, so we know it can be done.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

toastman, pbel, Kondor3, _et al,_

I must say, there is a multitude of view here.



Kondor3 said:


> Israel doesn't war-monger. Israel launches punitive expeditions and mini-wars when they have been on the recieving end of a suicide-bombing campaign or rocket-barrage for too long, and that's more a matter of self-defense than anything else.
> 
> If The West was truly sick of it, they would stop it, but they don't. Why? Because we like Jews better than we like Muslims - especially after 9-11 and the London Tube bombings.


*(COMMENT)*

First of all, "Kondor" is on target.  Israel is militarily reactive; like active armor on a tank.  You punch it, it punches back - sometimes by multiple factors as hard.  This is an observation one can make over and over again since the 1929 Riots and the rise of the Palestinian Black Hand to face the Haganah/Irgun; or the Israeli Operation "Bayonet"_("Wrath of God")_ in response to the 1972 Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic team.  The Israeli has learned the hard way, that it it unwise for them to place their security and survival in the hands of others.

And the Western Powers should understand that if the powers behind the Radical Islamic Jihadist and Fedayeen, as well as the unaligned insurgents and terrorist, are allowed to free range against sovereign states - unchallenged, simply because they make some ancient claim of land ownership, self-determination, and inalienable rights, the nations of the Middle East will fall into turmoil and chaos just as have Libya, Egypt and Syria have.  They will all loose, one at a time, their economic prosperity and the enjoyment of social advancement. 



pbel said:


> But the rest of the World dislikes Israel and her policies of land grabbing...they desperately need ME Oil over Israeli war mongering...Oil will win out.


*(COMMENT)*

Our friend "pbel" has also expressed an undeniable truth.  As much as the western world finds the ways and means of the Radical Islamic Jihadist and Fedayeen, as well as the unaligned insurgent and terrorist, to be contemptible, frivolous in their word, irresolute in their honesty and historically criminal, it is also the case that western world sees the actions of the Israel Government, with respect to the settlements of the Occupied Territory, as a counterproductive policy; and the actions of the Settlers in recent times reprehensible.  



toastman said:


> The way I see it, Israel is already alone.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel is not alone now, nor has it been alone since its inception.  But it has been, at times, uncooperative, ungrateful, and irresponsible in its international relationships that it is bound to maintain.  It has often forced its allies into a condition of "double think" where the allies must simultaneously hold and accept two mutually contradictory beliefs; one supporting the rights of Israel and one opposed to its survival mechanisms.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Make peace now and hope for the best_..."
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis would be fools to do so. It would mean the death of their nation. Their opponents will settle for nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._You cannot defeat Islam on its own turf_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can, if they're backed by most of Christendom (a.k.a. the secularized West), but, they don't really need to defeat Islam; just take back all of their old homeland, and to hold that.
> 
> Which they will. A century from now, Israel will still be alive and kicking, stronger than ever, and the by-then scattered Palestinians will have been in Jordan and Lebanon for 2-3 generations, and disappear from history, except as a footnote in school textbooks.
> 
> There is no Arab Legion or Arab cavalry coming over the hill, next time, to save the mad-dog Palestinians from being evicted and expelled.
> 
> Militant Islam has already shot its wad for a generation or two - they've only been out from under Colonial Rule for a generation or two, and they're already at each others' throats again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ranting of desperation...It wont be horses coming over the hills, it will be rockets...the West is sick of Israeli war mongering and boycotts are now being imposed, they will never come to Israel's aid. They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews.
Click to expand...




 Don't think so as the west would retaliate with rockets of their own, and the whole of islam would suffer. The west is not sick as shown by the numbers opposing the BDS movement, but they are sick of Islamic violence and terrorism against the innocent women and children in the west. Very soon it will hit the US and then you will see what they are capable of.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The ranting of desperation_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Personally, I'm not Jewish, nor tied to a Christian cult that focuses upon the return of the Jews as a harbinger of Armageddon. I look at the situation through cold, dispassionate eyes, in contemplating Israeli prospects.
> 
> Situationally, the Israelis are (and have been, for years) the strongest military power in the region; capable of holding off several of their Muslim neighbor-states simultaneously, even when those neighbors are in peak condition.
> 
> And those neighbors are now in a degenerate and impotent state, and will be for many years.
> 
> None of that sounds very 'desperate' to me.
> 
> 
> I don't know where those rockets will be coming from (_other than Uncle Achmed's Build-a-Rocket kits used by Hamas, et al_). Nothing serious to worry about.
> 
> 
> Israel doesn't war-monger. Israel launches punitive expeditions and mini-wars when they have been on the recieving end of a suicide-bombing campaign or rocket-barrage for too long, and that's more a matter of self-defense than anything else.
> 
> If The West was truly sick of it, they would stop it, but they don't. Why? Because we like Jews better than we like Muslims - especially after 9-11 and the London Tube bombings.
> 
> 
> Pfffffttt... BDS is a 9-year-old Circus Flea that is going nowhere, fast. My aunt Martha is more of an economic threat to Israel than BDS and its kindred.
> 
> 
> A matter of speculative opinion. Personally, I believe differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They are the cause of Israel's birth from the ashes of their holocaust against the Jews._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> Western support for Israel is part of a generations-long Penance that The West has given itself as a way to make-up for the Holocaust - in part, anyway.
> 
> Which is why we can expect Western support for Israel to continue for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, Israeli prospects look good for the near future, militarily...they lead the US congress and Federal officials like cows in a pasture with the most money contributions in history via AIPAC in America... But, America now oil independent, is withdrawing, because of the cost in money and blood.
> 
> Israel will become alone.
> 
> 
> But the rest of the World dislikes Israel and her policies of land grabbing...they desperately need ME Oil over Israeli war mongering...Oil will win out.
> 
> Plus all those quarreling Arabs in the Arab Spring has produced a civil society that has supported Jihadists...Yes in a hundred years, Israel will control Erets Israel by force...That's about the time they will all have nukes...I see Armageddon and Allah and Yaweh the moon gods will separate the rest, if peace to the 67 borders is not made.
Click to expand...




 You forget that the oil is running out and without Israeli technology and experimentation we will be back to walking everywhere. The Israelis have an alternative fuel source that they are perfecting based on water of all things, old tech but proven. So the arabs are getting scared of losing their stranglehold on the worlds economy.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Israeli prospects look good for the near future, militarily...they lead the US congress and Federal officials like cows in a pasture with the most money contributions in history via AIPAC in America... But, America now oil independent, is withdrawing, because of the cost in money and blood.
> 
> Israel will become alone.
> 
> 
> But the rest of the World dislikes Israel and her policies of land grabbing...they desperately need ME Oil over Israeli war mongering...Oil will win out.
> 
> Plus all those quarreling Arabs in the Arab Spring has produced a civil society that has supported Jihadists...Yes in a hundred years, Israel will control Erets Israel by force...That's about the time they will all have nukes...I see Armageddon and Allah and Yaweh the moon gods will separate the rest, if peace to the 67 borders is not made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, Israel is already alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly believe if an acceptable peace with Arab league blessing can turn things around...We all know the miracle of Economic prosperities ability to transform societies...
> 
> Israel at peace can make a huge Economic impact on the middle east and transform it into an Economic Oasis.
> 
> That would transform the view of the Jew, a co- religious brother who brought them a decent life.
Click to expand...




 Define what you mean by an "acceptable peace", and why you only include one side in this " acceptable peace". Is this because you are just a NEONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITE WAR MONGER.

 Isreal has a proven track record of honourable peace and decency as shown by the deals it has made with Egypt and Jordan.

 What you describe is a totalitarian Islamic state with the Jews as its slaves, well those that would be left.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, Israel is already alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly believe if an acceptable peace with Arab league blessing can turn things around...We all know the miracle of Economic prosperities ability to transform societies...
> 
> Israel at peace can make a huge Economic impact on the middle east and transform it into an Economic Oasis.
> 
> That would transform the view of the Jew, a co- religious brother who brought them a decent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by an "acceptable peace", and why you only include one side in this " acceptable peace". Is this because you are just a NEONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITE WAR MONGER.
> 
> Isreal has a proven track record of honourable peace and decency as shown by the deals it has made with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> What you describe is a totalitarian Islamic state with the Jews as its slaves, well those that would be left.
Click to expand...


You obviously lack intellect or have a heart...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state before then.
> 
> The UN does not have anything to do with creating or bestowing legitimacy. It can only give political recognition. It has nothing to do with legal standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
Click to expand...


The UN has always recognized Israel on those phony borders.

Curious, what?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?? Again?? This??
> 
> You're so funny. You get owned in the previous argument concerning this issue, and the next time it comes up, you pretend it never happened.
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
Click to expand...


August 6, 1924


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, you cannot argue my FACTUAL points
> 
> And I don't get ANY of my information from propaganda sites.
> 
> I showed me where I got my information from concerning events leading up to Israels declaration, but you haven't because you're too scare that I'm going to find information in those links that contradict what you say.
> 
> Telling ME that I need to read up on it. No offense, but that's extremely funny coming from you.
> 
> So, are you EVER going o show me where you get you information from ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
Click to expand...


Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that *country.*

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions...

Administration to assist and take part in the development of the* country.* 

The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the* country,...*

...provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the *country* or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the *country,...*

...develop any of the natural resources of the *country*, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the* country...*

The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the *country,...*

...promote the development of the natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population.

No antiquity may leave the *country* without an export licence from the said Department. 

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that *country.*
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions...
> 
> Administration to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the* country,...*
> 
> ...provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the *country* or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the *country,...*
> 
> ...develop any of the natural resources of the *country*, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the* country...*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the *country,...*
> 
> ...promote the development of the natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population.
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country* without an export licence from the said Department.
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? Again?? This??
> 
> You're so funny. You get owned in the previous argument concerning this issue, and the next time it comes up, you pretend it never happened.
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
Click to expand...


Even after all this , you proved nothing.

If they were a country already, why did they declare independence in 1948 (unrecognized)

If they were  country, why did they declare independence in 1988

If they were already a country, what was the whole point of the U.N partition plan, which was supposed to give the 'Palestinians' a sovereign country.

If Palestine was a country, why did they have no sovereignty during the period of 1948 and before

If Palestine was a country, why didn't they do anything about the Zionist immigration that they opposed so much??

The answer is, obviously, because Palestine was NOT a country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that *country.*
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions...
> 
> Administration to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the* country,...*
> 
> ...provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the *country* or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the *country,...*
> 
> ...develop any of the natural resources of the *country*, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the* country...*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the *country,...*
> 
> ...promote the development of the natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population.
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country* without an export licence from the said Department.
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? Again?? This??
> 
> You're so funny. You get owned in the previous argument concerning this issue, and the next time it comes up, you pretend it never happened.
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even after all this , you proved nothing.
> 
> If they were a country already, why did they declare independence in 1948 (unrecognized)
> 
> If they were  country, why did they declare independence in 1988
> 
> If they were already a country, what was the whole point of the U.N partition plan, which was supposed to give the 'Palestinians' a sovereign country.
> 
> If Palestine was a country, why did they have no sovereignty during the period of 1948 and before
> 
> If Palestine was a country, why didn't they do anything about the Zionist immigration that they opposed so much??
> 
> The answer is, obviously, because Palestine was NOT a country.
Click to expand...


Why ask questions if my answers prove nothing to you?


----------



## Andylusion

pbel said:


> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP)  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sent a defiant message to Israel's leadership and U.S. mediators Saturday, telling cheering supporters that the Palestinians "won't kneel" and won't drop demands for a capital in east Jerusalem.
> 
> Related Stories
> 
> Kerry sees progress on Israeli-Palestinian framework deal Reuters
> Kerry heads to Middle East next week for peace talks: U.S. official Reuters
> Kerry says progress in peace talks but more work needed AFP
> Analysis: Israel, Palestinians face hard choices Associated Press
> Kerry ends Mideast trip without framework deal AFP
> 
> Abbas' unusually fiery speech highlighted the wide gaps between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the outlines of a peace deal. It also raised new doubts about the chances of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to bridge those gaps in coming weeks and come up with a framework for an agreement.
> 
> Abbas adopted tough positions in the wide-ranging speech, saying that "there will be no peace" without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> He also suggested he would not continue negotiations beyond a U.S.-set target date of the end of April, and instead will resume his quest for broader international recognition of a state of Palestine by the United Nations and its various agencies.



Doesn't really matter what he says or does.   G-d himself ordained that the Jews be regathered to Israel, and they are doing that, and will continue to do so, and that's not going to change.

He can do whatever he wants, the outcome is already decided.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is nothing in the Treaty that discusses Palestine or the Palestinians.  It does not mention citizenship, and the Treaty Section on "Nationality" (Section II, Articles 30 thru 36) makes not such assertion.  Additionally, Article 5 - discussion the Boundary Commission refers to Article 2 Territories, which doesn't include the region of the undefined Palestine.  Article 3 covers the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia (not Article 2); however Article 8 allows the Boundary Commission to assist the Allied Powers over the region in terms of transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars), but no specifics (optional retainer).

So, I am again confused.  Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?

I have heard this claim before by pro-Palestinians - that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow makes an impact.  But other than to repeat the claim, they have never been able to show me specifically where this matter is discussed.  Can you?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Tinmore right now --------->


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that discusses Palestine or the Palestinians.  It does not mention citizenship, and the Treaty Section on "Nationality" (Section II, Articles 30 thru 36) makes not such assertion.  Additionally, Article 5 - discussion the Boundary Commission refers to Article 2 Territories, which doesn't include the region of the undefined Palestine.  Article 3 covers the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia (not Article 2); however Article 8 allows the Boundary Commission to assist the Allied Powers over the region in terms of transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars), but no specifics (optional retainer).
> 
> *So, I am again confused.  Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?*
> 
> I have heard this claim before by pro-Palestinians - that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow makes an impact.  But other than to repeat the claim, they have never been able to show me specifically where this matter is discussed.  Can you?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Where do you see an inconsistency?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that discusses Palestine or the Palestinians.  It does not mention citizenship, and the Treaty Section on "Nationality" (Section II, Articles 30 thru 36) makes not such assertion.  Additionally, Article 5 - discussion the Boundary Commission refers to Article 2 Territories, which doesn't include the region of the undefined Palestine.  Article 3 covers the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia (not Article 2); however Article 8 allows the Boundary Commission to assist the Allied Powers over the region in terms of transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars), but no specifics (optional retainer).
> 
> *So, I am again confused.  Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?*
> 
> I have heard this claim before by pro-Palestinians - that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow makes an impact.  But other than to repeat the claim, they have never been able to show me specifically where this matter is discussed.  Can you?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see an inconsistency?
Click to expand...



Responding to a questions with another questions; it's called the Tinmore Tactic
Were you saying that the Treaty of Lausanne is what made Palestine a country for Palestinians ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that discusses Palestine or the Palestinians.  It does not mention citizenship, and the Treaty Section on "Nationality" (Section II, Articles 30 thru 36) makes not such assertion.  Additionally, Article 5 - discussion the Boundary Commission refers to Article 2 Territories, which doesn't include the region of the undefined Palestine.  Article 3 covers the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia (not Article 2); however Article 8 allows the Boundary Commission to assist the Allied Powers over the region in terms of transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars), but no specifics (optional retainer).
> 
> *So, I am again confused.  Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?*
> 
> I have heard this claim before by pro-Palestinians - that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow makes an impact.  But other than to repeat the claim, they have never been able to show me specifically where this matter is discussed.  Can you?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you see an inconsistency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Responding to a questions with another questions; it's called the Tinmore Tactic
> Were you saying that the Treaty of Lausanne is what made Palestine a country for Palestinians ?
Click to expand...


I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.


----------



## pbel

Androw said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*
> 
> 
> 
> Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP)  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sent a defiant message to Israel's leadership and U.S. mediators Saturday, telling cheering supporters that the Palestinians "won't kneel" and won't drop demands for a capital in east Jerusalem.
> 
> Related Stories
> 
> Kerry sees progress on Israeli-Palestinian framework deal Reuters
> Kerry heads to Middle East next week for peace talks: U.S. official Reuters
> Kerry says progress in peace talks but more work needed AFP
> Analysis: Israel, Palestinians face hard choices Associated Press
> Kerry ends Mideast trip without framework deal AFP
> 
> Abbas' unusually fiery speech highlighted the wide gaps between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the outlines of a peace deal. It also raised new doubts about the chances of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to bridge those gaps in coming weeks and come up with a framework for an agreement.
> 
> Abbas adopted tough positions in the wide-ranging speech, saying that "there will be no peace" without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
> 
> He also suggested he would not continue negotiations beyond a U.S.-set target date of the end of April, and instead will resume his quest for broader international recognition of a state of Palestine by the United Nations and its various agencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter what he says or does.   G-d himself ordained that the Jews be regathered to Israel, and they are doing that, and will continue to do so, and that's not going to change.
> 
> He can do whatever he wants, the outcome is already decided.
Click to expand...


If that gawd can just come down from da heavins and spain it to us agin. is arme geddon next?


----------



## GISMYS

Yes!!! Ww111 anyday now and over 2 billion will die!!


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you see an inconsistency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Responding to a questions with another questions; it's called the Tinmore Tactic
> Were you saying that the Treaty of Lausanne is what made Palestine a country for Palestinians ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Where in the Treaty of Lausanne does it make Palestine a country?  

Many pro-Palestinian have made that claim, but, none have been able to show it substance.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly believe if an acceptable peace with Arab league blessing can turn things around...We all know the miracle of Economic prosperities ability to transform societies...
> 
> Israel at peace can make a huge Economic impact on the middle east and transform it into an Economic Oasis.
> 
> That would transform the view of the Jew, a co- religious brother who brought them a decent life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by an "acceptable peace", and why you only include one side in this " acceptable peace". Is this because you are just a NEONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITE WAR MONGER.
> 
> Isreal has a proven track record of honourable peace and decency as shown by the deals it has made with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> What you describe is a totalitarian Islamic state with the Jews as its slaves, well those that would be left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously lack intellect or have a heart...
Click to expand...





 WRONG the truth is you are afraid to put into writing your views because they will show your true feelings. The arab league charter spells it out very clearly in the 3 NO'S .


 Now define what you mean by an "acceptable peace" because to my mind the only acceptable peace is one that meets the objectives of all sides.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*By the way, Switzerland is a non-member observer State...the same status as the present Palestinian State to the 67 borders.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course prove that Palestine became a member of the UN at the 1967 borders that were never mutually agreed, thus breaching the UN charter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN has always recognized Israel on those phony borders.
> 
> Curious, what?
Click to expand...






 You can of course provide the evidence to support your claim, you know a UN resolution that says that Israel is recognised to the non existent 1967 borders.

 Not some press release of the speech by someone that was not voted on or used as the basis for a resolution.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? Again?? This??
> 
> You're so funny. You get owned in the previous argument concerning this issue, and the next time it comes up, you pretend it never happened.
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
Click to expand...




Who decided that it was a de facto country with a ruler, currency and infrastructure. Or are you referring to your usual rubbish that did not say this is Palestine the country.

EVIDENCE  EVIDENCE  EVIDENCE


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Who decided that it was a de facto country with a ruler, currency and infrastructure. Or are you referring to your usual rubbish that did not say this is Palestine the country.
> 
> EVIDENCE  EVIDENCE  EVIDENCE


They didn't have to be a country.

They had an indigenous population that had (and has) inalienable rights.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists had the help of the British to invade and take over their country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that *country.*
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions...
> 
> Administration to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the* country,...*
> 
> ...provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the *country* or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the *country,...*
> 
> ...develop any of the natural resources of the *country*, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the* country...*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the *country,...*
> 
> ...promote the development of the natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population.
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country* without an export licence from the said Department.
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
Click to expand...




 From your link in its entirety and not butchered it says this

 ART. 4.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. 

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. 


ART. 6.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 


ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine


ART. 11. 

The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land. 

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration. 




* So it seems that you are manipulation the written word to suit your POV once again*


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There was no country called Palestine during this time. You keep repeating this lie over and over. Nor was their an invasion. I explained to why this is so, and you choose to ignore that.
> 
> 2) The British had the authority to invite them and fascilitate their immigration. Who were the Palestinians to say weather or not they could come???? It was NOT THEIR COUNTRY.
> 
> 3) You have now reached expert level in Palestinian propaganda
> 
> *4) There was no country called Palestine during this time*
> 
> 5) There was no country called Palestine during this time (is there now?? I say no)
> 
> 6) You STILL haven't shown me where you get your info from concerning the events leading up to Israels declaration, as well as the 1948 Arab - Israeli war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that *country.*
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions...
> 
> Administration to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the* country,...*
> 
> ...provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the *country* or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the *country,...*
> 
> ...develop any of the natural resources of the *country*, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the* country...*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the *country,...*
> 
> ...promote the development of the natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population.
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country* without an export licence from the said Department.
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? Again?? This??
> 
> You're so funny. You get owned in the previous argument concerning this issue, and the next time it comes up, you pretend it never happened.
> 
> 
> When did Palestine become a country?? What day, month and year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even after all this , you proved nothing.
> 
> If they were a country already, why did they declare independence in 1948 (unrecognized)
> 
> If they were  country, why did they declare independence in 1988
> 
> If they were already a country, what was the whole point of the U.N partition plan, which was supposed to give the 'Palestinians' a sovereign country.
> 
> If Palestine was a country, why did they have no sovereignty during the period of 1948 and before
> 
> If Palestine was a country, why didn't they do anything about the Zionist immigration that they opposed so much??
> 
> The answer is, obviously, because Palestine was NOT a country.
Click to expand...





 He is trying to pass of the mandate of Palestine as a country because the League of Nations worded its document to say country and not unspecific area known as . It is called clutching at straws, and he has so few straws left that unless he learns how to swim he will drown.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that *country.*
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the *country* under such political, administrative and economic conditions...
> 
> Administration to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the* country,...*
> 
> ...provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the *country* or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the *country,...*
> 
> ...develop any of the natural resources of the *country*, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the* country...*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the *country,...*
> 
> ...promote the development of the natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population.
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country* without an export licence from the said Department.
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even after all this , you proved nothing.
> 
> If they were a country already, why did they declare independence in 1948 (unrecognized)
> 
> If they were  country, why did they declare independence in 1988
> 
> If they were already a country, what was the whole point of the U.N partition plan, which was supposed to give the 'Palestinians' a sovereign country.
> 
> If Palestine was a country, why did they have no sovereignty during the period of 1948 and before
> 
> If Palestine was a country, why didn't they do anything about the Zionist immigration that they opposed so much??
> 
> The answer is, obviously, because Palestine was NOT a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why ask questions if my answers prove nothing to you?
Click to expand...





 Because you have cherry picked parts of sentences to support and defend your POV, showing that you yourself know that you are walking on thin ice. It is a desperate measure used by many to gain some respectability before going down in flames.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that discusses Palestine or the Palestinians.  It does not mention citizenship, and the Treaty Section on "Nationality" (Section II, Articles 30 thru 36) makes not such assertion.  Additionally, Article 5 - discussion the Boundary Commission refers to Article 2 Territories, which doesn't include the region of the undefined Palestine.  Article 3 covers the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia (not Article 2); however Article 8 allows the Boundary Commission to assist the Allied Powers over the region in terms of transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars), but no specifics (optional retainer).
> 
> *So, I am again confused.  Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?*
> 
> I have heard this claim before by pro-Palestinians - that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow makes an impact.  But other than to repeat the claim, they have never been able to show me specifically where this matter is discussed.  Can you?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see an inconsistency?
Click to expand...




In your false claims that are not supported by the evidence you provide


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Responding to a questions with another questions; it's called the Tinmore Tactic
> Were you saying that the Treaty of Lausanne is what made Palestine a country for Palestinians ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where in the Treaty of Lausanne does it make Palestine a country?
> 
> Many pro-Palestinian have made that claim, but, none have been able to show it substance.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.

All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.

The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.

Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you see an inconsistency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Responding to a questions with another questions; it's called the Tinmore Tactic
> Were you saying that the Treaty of Lausanne is what made Palestine a country for Palestinians ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
Click to expand...




 Simple enough here it is for you again

  Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who decided that it was a de facto country with a ruler, currency and infrastructure. Or are you referring to your usual rubbish that did not say this is Palestine the country.
> 
> EVIDENCE  EVIDENCE  EVIDENCE
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't have to be a country.
> 
> They had an indigenous population that had (and has) inalienable rights.
Click to expand...




 That consisted of Jews, Christians and nomadic arabs, the rest were itinerant farm workers from outside the region. Are you saying that only the nomadic arabs had any rights, while the Jews and Christians had none. Or are you saying that a foreign interloper has more rights than an indigenous Jew, Chritian and arab nomad ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where in the Treaty of Lausanne does it make Palestine a country?
> 
> Many pro-Palestinian have made that claim, but, none have been able to show it substance.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.
Click to expand...





 never mind the generalities lets have the specifics in full. 
  Were is the area of Palestine you are referring to mentioned, and not the greater area of Palestine that the mandate refers to

 Which International Borders and do you have a map of these borders that states this is Palestine according the Lausanne  treaty.

 What nationality was determined in the Lausanne  treaty other than that of the next nation to take control ( in this case Britain )

 Were does it say that in the Lausanne  treaty ?

Right up until the mandate took effect and they then became British subjects, under British rule and covered by British laws.

 No they became de jure British subjects as International Law dictated, they did not become an autonomous nation.

 So you admit that you are putting words into a legal document so it supports your POV, this evidence would never stand up in a court of law. So why do you expect it to stand up on a message board


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Responding to a questions with another questions; it's called the Tinmore Tactic
> Were you saying that the Treaty of Lausanne is what made Palestine a country for Palestinians ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple enough here it is for you again
> 
> Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?
Click to expand...


I don't see where it does. That is why I asked for a clarification on that point.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where in the Treaty of Lausanne does it make Palestine a country?
> 
> Many pro-Palestinian have made that claim, but, none have been able to show it substance.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.
Click to expand...





 make your mind up as you have contradicted yourself in the above post.

 NOW EITHER PALESTINE IS NAMED OR IT ISN'T, WHICH BRANCH ARE YOU GOING FOR


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple enough here it is for you again
> 
> Is it your intention to suggest the Treaty of Lausanne somehow overrides Article 22 of the League of Nation Covenant or the Mandate of Palestine (which covers the instrumentality for nationality law)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see where it does. That is why I asked for a clarification on that point.
Click to expand...





 Thank you as you have just stated that your evidence is flawed and clouded by your personal views You have constantly stated that the treaty of Lausanne  overrides the League of nations and the mandate of Palestine. Now you are contradicting yourself again


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where in the Treaty of Lausanne does it make Palestine a country?
> 
> Many pro-Palestinian have made that claim, but, none have been able to show it substance.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> never mind the generalities lets have the specifics in full.
> Were is the area of Palestine you are referring to mentioned, and not the greater area of Palestine that the mandate refers to
> 
> Which International Borders and do you have a map of these borders that states this is Palestine according the Lausanne  treaty.
> 
> * What nationality was determined in the Lausanne  treaty other than that of the next nation to take control ( in this case Britain )*
> 
> Were does it say that in the Lausanne  treaty ?
> 
> *Right up until the mandate took effect and they then became British subjects, under British rule and covered by British laws.
> *
> *No they became de jure British subjects as International Law dictated, they did not become an autonomous nation.*
> 
> So you admit that you are putting words into a legal document so it supports your POV, this evidence would never stand up in a court of law. So why do you expect it to stand up on a message board
Click to expand...

You are basing your conclusions on false premise.
---------------------------
In a broader international context, the &#8220;Nationality law&#8230; showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.&#8221;90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

&#8220;(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them&#8230;&#8221;92​
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## rhodescholar

pbel said:


> You obviously lack intellect or have a heart...



You obviously lack brains, period.  Like so many other fake peace advocates, you have no answer for the following 2 questions/statements:

1) Since Israel was NOT in the West Bank from 1948-1967, and allegedly this conflict is based upon land, why was there so much terrorism and attacks against it at that time?

2) If Israel agrees to pulling out of the West Bank and the terrorism continues, then what?  Will you and the other feces admit that this is not a conflict over land, but of sovereignty, and that land is a fig leaf for the arab muslim filth?  Will you and the other turd accept Israel's massive and appropriate responses when they are, yet again, attacked 5, 10, and 20 years AFTER this fake "peace deal" is signed?

Scum like you has no answer to the first question, and lack the brains to honestly admit that you and the other dogshit will still rail against all and any responses from Israel even after it has completely pulled out of the West Bank.

I can only laugh at fucking garbage like you, because if Israel vanished tomorrow, the muslim filth will then have one less target to strike on the list other than the US and Europe.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is incorrect.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> never mind the generalities lets have the specifics in full.
> Were is the area of Palestine you are referring to mentioned, and not the greater area of Palestine that the mandate refers to
> 
> Which International Borders and do you have a map of these borders that states this is Palestine according the Lausanne  treaty.
> 
> * What nationality was determined in the Lausanne  treaty other than that of the next nation to take control ( in this case Britain )*
> 
> Were does it say that in the Lausanne  treaty ?
> 
> *Right up until the mandate took effect and they then became British subjects, under British rule and covered by British laws.
> *
> *No they became de jure British subjects as International Law dictated, they did not become an autonomous nation.*
> 
> So you admit that you are putting words into a legal document so it supports your POV, this evidence would never stand up in a court of law. So why do you expect it to stand up on a message board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your conclusions on false premise.
> ---------------------------
> In a broader international context, the &#8220;Nationality law&#8230; showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.&#8221;90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> &#8220;(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them&#8230;&#8221;92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Treaty of Lausanne merely protects the Mandatory from the indigenous population of various regions from automatically assuming the citizenship of the Mandatory.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not define Palestine at all, nor does it extend to it any sovereignty.  

In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine; let alone set the boundaries to which "the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State" (as you claim).   No international court holds that interpretation, not even the Arab League.  Even the Arab League recognizes the 1988 Declaration as the creation of the Palestine State.

This is just some half-baked attempt to twist history into the frame favorable to the Palestinian cause.  But Prior to November 1988, there was no Palestine State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer his question if I don't know what he is asking.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where in the Treaty of Lausanne does it make Palestine a country?
> 
> Many pro-Palestinian have made that claim, but, none have been able to show it substance.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that nowhere in the Treaty of Laussane does it say Palestine was to be made a country for the Palestinians?? YES or NO ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> never mind the generalities lets have the specifics in full.
> Were is the area of Palestine you are referring to mentioned, and not the greater area of Palestine that the mandate refers to
> 
> Which International Borders and do you have a map of these borders that states this is Palestine according the Lausanne  treaty.
> 
> * What nationality was determined in the Lausanne  treaty other than that of the next nation to take control ( in this case Britain )*
> 
> Were does it say that in the Lausanne  treaty ?
> 
> *Right up until the mandate took effect and they then became British subjects, under British rule and covered by British laws.
> *
> *No they became de jure British subjects as International Law dictated, they did not become an autonomous nation.*
> 
> So you admit that you are putting words into a legal document so it supports your POV, this evidence would never stand up in a court of law. So why do you expect it to stand up on a message board
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusions on false premise.
> ---------------------------
> In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne merely protects the Mandatory from the indigenous population of various regions from automatically assuming the citizenship of the Mandatory. * The Treaty of Lausanne does not define Palestine at all, nor does it extend to it any sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that?



> *In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne does not even mention Palestine; let alone set the boundaries to which "the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State" (as you claim).*   No international court holds that interpretation, not even the Arab League.  Even the Arab League recognizes the 1988 Declaration as the creation of the Palestine State.


You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.



> This is just some half-baked attempt to twist history into the frame favorable to the Palestinian cause.  But Prior to November 1988, there was no Palestine State.


What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your conclusions on false premise.
> ---------------------------
> In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne merely protects the Mandatory from the indigenous population of various regions from automatically assuming the citizenship of the Mandatory. * The Treaty of Lausanne does not define Palestine at all, nor does it extend to it any sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link to that?
> 
> 
> You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just some half-baked attempt to twist history into the frame favorable to the Palestinian cause.  But Prior to November 1988, there was no Palestine State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You should respond to his questions before you ask any.

*You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.*

I asked you what day,month,year did Palestine become a country. You answered by giving me the date of the Treaty of Laussane, therefore implying that it was that treaty that Made Palestine. That is very interesting considering the word Palestine isn't even mentioned.

*What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?*

Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE. 

Have you ever even read about the 1988 DOI ??? If so, can I see the link you are using for that?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

As a point of clarification.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.


*(OBSERVATION)*
Reference:  Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

Please note that the citation you provided makes reference to footnote #123, "123  British Government, Report on the Administration under Mandate of Palestine, 1924, p. 6."



			
				REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 31 December 1924 said:
			
		

> *VI.--Nationality.*
> 
> 1.Q.--What is the text of the Nationality law?
> 
> 2. Q.--Have special provisions been enacted, framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews?
> 
> 1 and 2. A.--The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council was drawn up in 1924, but the final text was not settled and the Order made until July, 1925. The matter will therefore be dealt with in the Report for 1925.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1925 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *VI.--NATIONALITY.*
> 
> 1.Q.	What is the text of the nationality law?
> 
> A.	The text of the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council and of a Proclamation by the High Commissioner for Palestine amending Article 2 thereof are reprinted in Section 4 of this Report.
> 
> 2.Q.	Have special provisions been enacted, framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews?
> 
> A.	Article 5 of the Order facilitates the acquisition of citizenship by Jews who opted therefor under Article 2 of the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. The qualifications for naturalization are simple: two years' residence in Palestine out of the three years preceding application, good character, and the declared intention to settle in Palestine; knowledge of Hebrew is accepted under the literacy qualification. In special cases the High Commissioner is empowered to grant naturalization even if the period of residence has not been within the three years preceding application. Special naturalization offices have already been opened in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tiberias; and an officer is visiting the Jewish agricultural settlements in the north to receive applications on the spot.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Report 31 December 1925
> 
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Report 31 December 1924
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

So far, on close examination and tracking back to the original source of the information, does any of it suggest that the Mandate of Palestine was affected at all by the Treaty of Lausanne.   And that you claim that Palestine was defined by other than the Allied Powers, and the Nationality Law, as administered of Palestine by The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council, was in any way altered by the Treaty of Lausanne is anything other than an unsubstantiated claim.



			
				Order in Council 1922:  AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE said:
			
		

> (b)  All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)



It should be said, nothing of consequence happened on 6 August 1924, relative to Palestine; nothing at all.  It is a totally bogus argument.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne merely protects the Mandatory from the indigenous population of various regions from automatically assuming the citizenship of the Mandatory. * The Treaty of Lausanne does not define Palestine at all, nor does it extend to it any sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that?
> 
> 
> You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should respond to his questions before you ask any.
> 
> *You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.*
> 
> I asked you what day,month,year did Palestine become a country. You answered by giving me the date of the Treaty of Laussane, therefore implying that it was that treaty that Made Palestine. That is very interesting considering the word Palestine isn't even mentioned.
> 
> *What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?*
> 
> Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.
> 
> Have you ever even read about the 1988 DOI ??? If so, can I see the link you are using for that?
Click to expand...




> Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.



You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

And here is the circular argument.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did.  The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948.  The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.  

Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance.  It was not even recognized by the Arab League.  



			
				Arab Higher Committee said:
			
		

> A committee of the same name was reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Arab Higher Committee Portal AND/OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Higher_Committee



In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> As a point of clarification.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> Reference:  Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Please note that the citation you provided makes reference to footnote #123, "123  British Government, Report on the Administration under Mandate of Palestine, 1924, p. 6."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE. 31 December 1924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *VI.--Nationality.*
> 
> 1.Q.--What is the text of the Nationality law?
> 
> 2. Q.--Have special provisions been enacted, framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews?
> 
> 1 and 2. A.--The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council was drawn up in 1924, but the final text was not settled and the Order made until July, 1925. The matter will therefore be dealt with in the Report for 1925.
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Report 31 December 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So far, on close examination and tracking back to the original source of the information, does any of it suggest that the Mandate of Palestine was affected at all by the Treaty of Lausanne.   And that you claim that Palestine was defined by other than the Allied Powers, and the Nationality Law, as administered of Palestine by The Palestine Citizenship Order-in-Council, was in any way altered by the Treaty of Lausanne is anything other than an unsubstantiated claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Order in Council 1922:  AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b)  All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be said, nothing of consequence happened on 6 August 1924, relative to Palestine; nothing at all.  It is a totally bogus argument.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


*Not true.*

That was the date that Turkish citizens became Palestinians citizens as confirmed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925.



> In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:
> 
> * "Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."*​
> Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> And here is the circular argument.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did.  The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948.  The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.
> 
> Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance.  It was not even recognized by the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Higher Committee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A committee of the same name was reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Arab Higher Committee Portal AND/OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Higher_Committee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II);



Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._In a broader international context, the 'Nationality law&#8230; showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship'_..."


Fine.

In the case of Old Palestine, at the moment of the termination of the Guardianship of the Mandate...

The North (Israel) seceeded from the Union.

A civil war was fought over the secession.

Victory on the battlefield legitimized the new Rebel State.

Permanently splitting Old Palestine into (1) Israel and (2) Rump Palestine.

And setting aside - forevermore - old legal status and ownerships and understandings.

Their borders then became defined as whatever territory they were holding by population pressure or force of arms.

Their borders became whatever the Israelis say they are.

Don't like that?

Time-travel back to 1948, fight for the Arabs, and win.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._In a broader international context, the 'Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship'_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> In the case of Old Palestine, at the moment of the termination of the Guardianship of the Mandate...
> 
> The North (Israel) seceeded from the Union.
> 
> A civil war was fought over the secession.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield legitimized the new Rebel State.
> 
> Permanently splitting Old Palestine into (1) Israel and (2) Rump Palestine.
> 
> And setting aside - forevermore - old legal status and ownerships and understandings.
> 
> Their borders then became defined as whatever territory they were holding by population pressure or force of arms.
> 
> Their borders became whatever the Israelis say they are.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Time-travel back to 1948, fight for the Arabs, and win.
Click to expand...



I have to agree with you...This conflict can only be settled by war or force of arms...

I just don't see how Israel is going to survive in the long run without a Political solution...Wars of resistance or in a wider sense attrition numbers win...this is how the Arabs have managed to defeat all previous invaders in history...

It will take a long time.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._In a broader international context, the 'Nationality law&#8230; showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship'_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> In the case of Old Palestine, at the moment of the termination of the Guardianship of the Mandate...
> 
> The North (Israel) seceeded from the Union.
> 
> A civil war was fought over the secession.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield legitimized the new Rebel State.
> 
> Permanently splitting Old Palestine into (1) Israel and (2) Rump Palestine.
> 
> And setting aside - forevermore - old legal status and ownerships and understandings.
> 
> Their borders then became defined as whatever territory they were holding by population pressure or force of arms.
> 
> Their borders became whatever the Israelis say they are.
> 
> Don't like that?
> 
> Time-travel back to 1948, fight for the Arabs, and win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you...This conflict can only be settled by war or force of arms...
> 
> I just don't see how Israel is going to survive in the long run without a Political solution...Wars of resistance or in a wider sense attrition numbers win...this is how the Arabs have managed to defeat all previous invaders in history...
> 
> It will take a long time.
Click to expand...

And yet, given that the Arabs will, in the end, settle for nothing less than the recovery of all of Old Palestine and the erasure of the State of Israel, a permanent political settlement appears to be forevermore out of reach, and pointless.

Make a political settlement giving back part of Old Palestine now and things go quiet for 10 or 20 years, until they demand the NEXT chunk, in Round No. 417 of their quest for reconquest and mastery...

If true - and I sincerely and genuinely believe that to be the case, based on the past experiences of Israel, and the multi-generational jihad mentality that pervades Islam...

If the Israelis give an inch, the Palestinians will be back tomorrow to take a mile...

If the Israelis show a measure of weakness, the Palestinians will pounce like vultures...

Ultimately, given who the Israelis are up against - there's no possibility of a lasting political settlement, and no longer any point in trying.

And if THAT is true - if there is no longer any point in trying - then, the Israelis might as well just bite the goddamned bullet, and complete the job of reconquest of Eretz Yislrael, and get it the hell over with, while their neighbors are crippled with troubles of their own... evicting and expelling the Problematic Folk, and moving Jews into the vacuum, in order to gain internal security.

It's bad enough to be insecure with respect to some of your neighbors, but a fait accompli is usually difficult to reverse, and the Arabs have bled enough for the Palestinians - we're looking at long-term donor exhaustion on the part of the Arabs - I think they've had sufficient demonstrations of Israeli military might to last them for a generation or two.

It's quite another matter - and foolhardy - to perpetuate a situation that creates internal security problems.


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:* "Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."*​Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)
Click to expand...

It's "palestinian citizenship", not palistanian citizenship, of course. Let us not mislead the innocent and the gullible.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to that?
> 
> 
> You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should respond to his questions before you ask any.
> 
> *You need to re read my posts. I didn't say that.*
> 
> I asked you what day,month,year did Palestine become a country. You answered by giving me the date of the Treaty of Laussane, therefore implying that it was that treaty that Made Palestine. That is very interesting considering the word Palestine isn't even mentioned.
> 
> *What right to declare independence did the Palestinians have in 1988 that they did not have in 1948?*
> 
> Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.
> 
> Have you ever even read about the 1988 DOI ??? If so, can I see the link you are using for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arrgghhh ! In 1948, they declared independence on LAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ANOTHER PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.
Click to expand...


Prove what is true? That Israel declared independence ? They did so on the land ALLOTTED to them in Resolution 181.

After the Arabs invaded the territory with the intention of destroying the newly founded state, Israel not only kept its territory (Resolution 181), but they captured 50% of the land allotted to the 'Palestinians' in Resolution 181. 

Now of course you're going to say that the extra 50% they captured is occupied, right?

Well go right ahead so I can dismantle that claim as well


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> And here is the circular argument.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but have yet to prove that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did.  The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948.  The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.
> 
> Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance.  It was not even recognized by the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II);
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
Click to expand...





 It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel

 The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.

 So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.


----------



## Phoenall

docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:* "Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."*​Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "palestinian citizenship", not palistanian citizenship, of course. Let us not mislead the innocent and the gullible.
Click to expand...






 Maybe this will help him understand this better

Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations (31 December 1924)

 1.Q.--What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures? A.--The Government of Palestine has continued by legislative, administrative and fiscal measures to develop and improve local conditions, with the general aim of providing equal security and opportunity for all communities and classes, and of encouraging enterprise. Jewish initiative has been quick to take advantage of the more favourable conditions thus created for industrial development and agricultural settlement (see pp. 3 and 4 of the Report for 1924); and 12,856 Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine in the course of the year. A special ordinance was passed to incorporate the enterprises of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, which are concerned with the settlement of Jews on the land in Palestine. There were also incorporated in accordance with the law of companies and co-operative societies the American Zion Commonwealth for the promotion of Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine, and a number of Jewish co-operative societies for building and credit purposes. In consequence of the facilities provided by the Correction of Land Registers Ordinance and with the assistance of the Government Land Registries, properties owned by Jewish interests, but under the Ottoman régime registered in the name of Ottoman subjects, are now being recorded in the names of the actual owners. 


2.Q.--What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the development of self-governing institutions? What are the effects of these measures? A.--Legislation is still passed by the official Advisory Council, over which the High Commissioner presides, under the sanction of the Palestine (Amendment) Order-in-Council, 1923.* The Palestine Legislative Council (Election) Order-in-Council, 1922, and those provisions of the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922, which deal with the establishment of a Legislative Council have been suspended on account of the abstention of a majority of the Arab population from the elections to a Legislative Council.* As the consequence such progress as can be recorded in this direction is in the sphere of local rather than central government. 



 So as we can see the arab Palestinians turned down the chance to be Palestinian citizens.


----------



## RoccoR

docmauser1,  _et al,_

I believe or friend "docmauser1" is on the right track.

First, let me make reference to my Post #938, and specifically the quotations.



docmauser1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Palestine, citizenship was governed by the Palestine Citizenship Order of 24 July 1925 (Statutory Rules and Orders, I925, No. 777; which came into force on 1 August 1925), amended by various successive orders. This defined a Palestinian as a 'Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine". The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:* "Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."*​Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "palestinian citizenship", not palistanian citizenship, of course. Let us not mislead the innocent and the gullible.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

They were actually trying to make a distinction between those people that wanted to retain citizenship under the new Turkish Government, yet lived in Mandate territory _(what we would call today a permanent resident alien)_; and those that wanted to relinquish Turkish citizenship in favor of the new governments under the Mandate.

This original language string dates back to the Order in Council of August 1922, and not the more refined language we see in the 1924 Lausanne Treaty.  It was part and parcel of the intent to protect both the Mandatory Powers (several of them) and the civil rights of the population.  Nor was there an intent to create a new nationality under a new sovereign power.  

In Post #925, our friend PF Tinmore makes the claim that:



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was named. Its international borders were defined. The nationality of Palestinians was determined. Palestinians were to be citizens of Palestine.
> 
> All of this, however, was all de facto. Legally, Palestine was still Turkish territory and Palestinians were Turkish citizens.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne changed all that. Palestine changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making du jure all of those things that were de facto before the treaty was signed.
> 
> Even though Palestine was not mentioned by name, the provisions applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey.



The fact of the matter is, that in 12 August 1922, the Palestine Order in Council, 10 August 1922 was already legally in place; immediately followed by theMandate of Palestine.  The 1924 Lausanne Treaty was, for the purpose of this topic, to clarify and solidify what had already been put in place.


Yes, Palestine was named, as a Mandate Territory in 1920; included in the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the frontier of Persia; known as Syria in SECTION I -  TERRITORIAL CLAUSES - Article 3 of the Lausanne Treaty.

Yes, the international borders were defined as determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory selected by the Allied Powers.  The Article 5 Boundary Commission was not responsible for marking the previous arrangements of the Syke-Picot Agreement.

No, Palestine was NOT still Turkish territory but well under the control of the Allied Powers; but there was a question as to the citizenship of the various populations in the Mandate Territory.  Hence, the the reason for a Order in Council on the matter.

No, Palestine DID NOT changed from a territory of Turkey to a successor state making _de jure_ all of those things that were _de facto_ before the treaty was signed.  That was not the intent.  The Article 5 Boundary Commission (Lausanne Treaty) was appointed to trace on the ground the frontiers defined by previous agreements _(directly pertaining to SECTION I. - TERRITORIAL CLAUSES within ARTICLE 2 that excluded the Syrian Territory for which Palestine was included)_ and was subject to those previous agreements on territorial responsibility.

No, the provisions _(of the Lausanne Treaty)_ DO NOT applied universally to all of the new states that were ceded from Turkey; as some were specific and some were general.  In fact, what were later to become new states _(in the Mandate "A" Class regions in the Middle East)_ was a matter subject to the Mandatory Powers, pursuant under the supervision and oversight of the Allied Powers and the League of Nations.

There is no support for the implication that the SECTION II - NATIONALITY - ARTICLES 30 thru 36, altered in any form, the original intention of the San Remo Agreement, the original Palestine Order in Council, or the Mandate of Palestine.

I hope this helps clarify the claims.

Most Responsibility,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the circular argument.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II); which you don't recognize, but both the PLO (as the sole representative of the Palestinian People) and the Jewish State did.  The Jewish State declared independence IAW RES 181 in May 1948.  The Palestinians declared independence IAW RES 181 in November 1988.
> 
> Anything the AHC did in September 1948, was discarded because it was not in compliance.  It was not even recognized by the Arab League.
> 
> In 1948, the Arab Higher Committee failed to satisfy the traditional criteria for statehood: it did not have effective governmental control in any area in which they presumed their state to exist, or any effective control over a permanent population.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II);
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel
> 
> The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.
> 
> So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.

That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes:  "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel
> 
> The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.
> 
> So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.
> 
> That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes:  "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Nice duck.

Of course that did not answer my question.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not need to as 181 does not define any borders, it suggests possible borders. This is the International Law in regards to Israel
> 
> The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.
> 
> So you see International law is in support of Israel and not the filastins.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.
> 
> That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes:  "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Of course that did not answer my question.
Click to expand...


Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't. 

Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> To an extent, I think that our friend "Phoenall" has a very good point.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original PART II Boundaries noted in Section B (Jewish State), were made obsolete and over taken by events on the outbreak of hostilities from the invasion of the 5 Arab Armies.
> 
> That makes Phoenall's quote very applicable for today in the shadow of post-War outcomes:  "vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Of course that did not answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.
> 
> Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.
Click to expand...


No he didn't.



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II)





			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.


Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Of course that did not answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.
> 
> Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.
Click to expand...


You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.

Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.
> 
> Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.
> 
> Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'
Click to expand...


Specifically, what was the answer to my question?


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> That consisted of Jews, Christians and nomadic arabs, the rest were itinerant farm workers from outside the region. Are you saying that only the nomadic arabs had any rights, while the Jews and Christians had none.


The arabs were not nomadic, they were residents. 

 And ALL residents had inalienable rights, irregardless of what name they call God. 



Phoenall said:


> Or are you saying that a foreign interloper has more rights than an indigenous Jew, Chritian and arab nomad ?


That would be Zionists who migrated into the area and no, they don't have more rights than the people already living there.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.
> 
> Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specifically, what was the answer to my question?
Click to expand...


Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only asked ONE question. He answered that question. You need to deal with your reading comprehension issues.
> 
> Oh. and you out of all people shouldn't accuse others of 'blowing smoke'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically, what was the answer to my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO
Click to expand...


Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically, what was the answer to my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.
Click to expand...


Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. He said it doesn't need to be written. Meaning NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
> Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!
Click to expand...


I await your response.


----------



## pbel

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt · The Israel Lobby: the Israel Lobby · LRB 23 March 2006

Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians* elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of human rights, to international law and to the principle of national self-determination*. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
> Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I await your response.
Click to expand...


Do you not remember the link I provided you concerning the PDI and the relation to Resolution 181 ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
> Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I await your response.
Click to expand...


_*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181* (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states. Despite the proclamation of the State of Palestine, at the time the Palestine Liberation Organization did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[5] which was under Israeli control and claimed by it as Israel's capital. Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Declaration_of_Independence_


----------



## toastman

_ following upon UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, *yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty*._

Document: Palestinian Declaration of Independence, 15 Nov 1988


----------



## toastman

Text of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Algiers Declaration (1988)
Algiers, November 15, 1988

* following upon U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.*

Text of Palestinian Declaration of Independence (1988) - Full Text of Palestinian Declaration of Independence, or Algiers Declaration of 1988


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
> Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181* (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states. Despite the proclamation of the State of Palestine, at the time the Palestine Liberation Organization did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[5] which was under Israeli control and claimed by it as Israel's capital. Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.
> 
> Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
Click to expand...

_

Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.

How can you divide an administration into two states._


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The question was answered several times.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Of course that did not answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.
> 
> Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish State was the outcome of the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 181(II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First review Posting 870 - and - Posting #788.

*The Jewish Agency acknowledged GA/RES/181(II) which contained the boundaries and declared Independence in accordance with the Resolution; fulfilling the step preparatory to independence with the UN Palestine Commission.*  Question answered several time, including in the previous posts.

If anyone is blowing smoke, it is you attempting to ignore the DoI, and its implications.  I've said this over and over again.  What killed the borders as accepted in the RES 181  was the Arab invasion and military confrontation that ensued on the same day as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) was dispatched.  At the ceasefire, through military hot pursuit, Israel had gained control over more land than originally allocated.

It was the Hostile Arab Palestinian, in the solemn pledge of genocide, that rejected their portion of the allocated territory, opting for war and conflict.

AGAIN, the answer is in the DoI; see Posting #788, authenticated as implemented by the UN Palestine Commission.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The question was answered several times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He said "it did not need to" , which of course means, it didn't.
> 
> Not that your question is relevant or has any meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First review Posting 870 - and - Posting #788.
> 
> *The Jewish Agency acknowledged GA/RES/181(II) which contained the boundaries and declared Independence in accordance with the Resolution; fulfilling the step preparatory to independence with the UN Palestine Commission.*  Question answered several time, including in the previous posts.
> 
> If anyone is blowing smoke, it is you attempting to ignore the DoI, and its implications.  I've said this over and over again.  What killed the borders as accepted in the RES 181  was the Arab invasion and military confrontation that ensued on the same day as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) was dispatched.  At the ceasefire, through military hot pursuit, Israel had gained control over more land than originally allocated.
> 
> It was the Hostile Arab Palestinian, in the solemn pledge of genocide, that rejected their portion of the allocated territory, opting for war and conflict.
> 
> AGAIN, the answer is in the DoI; see Posting #788, authenticated as implemented by the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


My question remains unanswered.

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I think I have answered ever question you have raise in detail.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have always wondered why he always invokes resolution 181 when it really doesn't apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
> Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I await your response.
Click to expand...

*(QUESTION)*

What question remains unanswered?

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think I have answered ever question you have raise in detail.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive shown you several links that say otherwise, even concerning the Palestinian declaration of independence.
> Im on my phone, but ill post the links later ..........AGAIN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What question remains unanswered?
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The question was answered several times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> Then Rocco started to blow smoke. That question remains unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First review Posting 870 - and - Posting #788.
> 
> *The Jewish Agency acknowledged GA/RES/181(II) which contained the boundaries and declared Independence in accordance with the Resolution; fulfilling the step preparatory to independence with the UN Palestine Commission.*  Question answered several time, including in the previous posts.
> 
> If anyone is blowing smoke, it is you attempting to ignore the DoI, and its implications.  I've said this over and over again.  What killed the borders as accepted in the RES 181  was the Arab invasion and military confrontation that ensued on the same day as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) was dispatched.  At the ceasefire, through military hot pursuit, Israel had gained control over more land than originally allocated.
> 
> It was the Hostile Arab Palestinian, in the solemn pledge of genocide, that rejected their portion of the allocated territory, opting for war and conflict.
> 
> AGAIN, the answer is in the DoI; see Posting #788, authenticated as implemented by the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question remains unanswered.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
Click to expand...

*(ANSWER)*

&#8220;ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE"

As highlighted in the Previous Posting 788.

The "Jewish State" is described in the Resolution as follows:



			
				PART II - Boundaries said:
			
		

> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The question was answered several times.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First review Posting 870 - and - Posting #788.
> 
> *The Jewish Agency acknowledged GA/RES/181(II) which contained the boundaries and declared Independence in accordance with the Resolution; fulfilling the step preparatory to independence with the UN Palestine Commission.*  Question answered several time, including in the previous posts.
> 
> If anyone is blowing smoke, it is you attempting to ignore the DoI, and its implications.  I've said this over and over again.  What killed the borders as accepted in the RES 181  was the Arab invasion and military confrontation that ensued on the same day as the Declaration of Independence (DoI) was dispatched.  At the ceasefire, through military hot pursuit, Israel had gained control over more land than originally allocated.
> 
> It was the Hostile Arab Palestinian, in the solemn pledge of genocide, that rejected their portion of the allocated territory, opting for war and conflict.
> 
> AGAIN, the answer is in the DoI; see Posting #788, authenticated as implemented by the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question remains unanswered.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE"
> 
> As highlighted in the Previous Posting 788.
> 
> The "Jewish State" is described in the Resolution as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART II - Boundaries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but you are dancing around my question.

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question remains unanswered.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE"
> 
> As highlighted in the Previous Posting 788.
> 
> The "Jewish State" is described in the Resolution as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART II - Boundaries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> 
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but you are dancing around my question.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State."  They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else.  The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.

It is you that is blowing smoke.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181* (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states. Despite the proclamation of the State of Palestine, at the time the Palestine Liberation Organization did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[5] which was under Israeli control and claimed by it as Israel's capital. Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.
> 
> Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.
> 
> How can you divide an administration into two states._
Click to expand...

_

Obviously when they said the British Mandate, they were referring to the British Mandate of Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine.

Nothing you said changes the fact that Resolution 181 WAS actually a factor in both DOI (Israel and Palestine)_


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think I have answered ever question you have raise in detail.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What question remains unanswered?
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
Click to expand...


You're asking this question as if a lack of response to it means anything. 

What are you trying to prove ??


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE"
> 
> As highlighted in the Previous Posting 788.
> 
> The "Jewish State" is described in the Resolution as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you are dancing around my question.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State."  They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else.  The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.
> 
> It is you that is blowing smoke.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.

You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.

Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

There is a misunderstanding here.


			
				The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
> 
> And whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> 11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council





toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181* (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states. Despite the proclamation of the State of Palestine, at the time the Palestine Liberation Organization did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[5] which was under Israeli control and claimed by it as Israel's capital. Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.
> 
> Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.
> 
> How can you divide an administration into two states._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Obviously when they said the British Mandate, they were referring to the British Mandate of Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine.
> 
> Nothing you said changes the fact that Resolution 181 WAS actually a factor in both DOI (Israel and Palestine)_
Click to expand...

_
*(COMMENT)*

Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988).  It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.

There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience.  But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute.  Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events.  But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you are dancing around my question.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State."  They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else.  The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.
> 
> It is you that is blowing smoke.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.
> 
> You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.
> 
> Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
Click to expand...


BOTH parties were attacking each other ! You're so incredibly biased ! 

In fact, the Palestinians were the first ones to attack; 1929 Hebron Massacre


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, can you show me where you get your information regarding the Arab Israeli war(1948) as well as the events before it (1947 mandatory Palestine civil war and before)


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> There is a misunderstanding here.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
> 
> And whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> 11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.
> 
> How can you divide an administration into two states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously when they said the British Mandate, they were referring to the British Mandate of Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine.
> 
> Nothing you said changes the fact that Resolution 181 WAS actually a factor in both DOI (Israel and Palestine)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988).  It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.
> 
> There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience.  But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute.  Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events.  But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.

Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.

Israel *said* that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.

How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State."  They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else.  The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.
> 
> It is you that is blowing smoke.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.
> 
> You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.
> 
> Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTH parties were attacking each other ! You're so incredibly biased !
> 
> In fact, the Palestinians were the first ones to attack; 1929 Hebron Massacre
Click to expand...


Pffft, Israeli propaganda.

The conflict started about the time Britain started imposing the foreign Balfour declaration on Palestine against the wishes of the native population.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.
> 
> You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.
> 
> Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH parties were attacking each other ! You're so incredibly biased !
> 
> In fact, the Palestinians were the first ones to attack; 1929 Hebron Massacre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pffft, Israeli propaganda.
> 
> The conflict started about the time Britain started imposing the foreign Balfour declaration on Palestine against the wishes of the native population.
Click to expand...


Actually, your statement is Palestinian propaganda

BOTH sides were fighting against eachother...FACT

The Palestinians committed the first massacre.....FACT

Now, about your sources concerning the 1948 war and the events preceding it...got links ?


----------



## percysunshine

Oops.....I thought this was the anti-bowling thread.

.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> There is a misunderstanding here.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
> 
> And whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> 11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously when they said the British Mandate, they were referring to the British Mandate of Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine.
> 
> Nothing you said changes the fact that Resolution 181 WAS actually a factor in both DOI (Israel and Palestine)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988).  It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.
> 
> There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience.  But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute.  Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events.  But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.
> 
> Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.
> 
> Israel *said* that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.
> 
> How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?
Click to expand...


Are you saying again that resolution 181 had no meaning for EITHER DOI ??


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance.  Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you are dancing around my question.
> 
> Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?
> 
> Quote the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State."  They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else.  The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.
> 
> It is you that is blowing smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OK we agree on the acceptance.  The ongoing civil war in the month preceding the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a matter of record.  The
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community.  The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI.  But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.  It should be noted that the Arab Forces were already moving into attack positions months before hand.  The Arab League was already in the Territory by March, two months before Israel Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We disagree here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LETTER DATED 29 NOVEMBER 1948 FROM ISRAELS FOREIGN MINISTER TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING ISRAELS APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND DECLARATION ACCEPTING OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CHARTER said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 14 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish people in Palestine by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people to independence in its own sovereign State *and in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947*. Since that date Israel has been consolidated administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of neighbouring States. It has so far achieved recognition by nineteen Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947* 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ *before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions*,
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ S/1093  29 November 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that new States declare themselves sovereign, it is also true that these political action are often done in cooperation and coordination with other powers and organizations.
> 
> Again, you will not that both the Jewish State (1948) and the Arab State (1988) both cite the Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as of importance to their individual DoI's.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> There is a misunderstanding here.
> ​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988).  It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.
> 
> There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience.  But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute.  Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events.  But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.
> 
> Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.
> 
> Israel *said* that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.
> 
> How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying again that resolution 181 had no meaning for EITHER DOI ??
Click to expand...


Correctomundo!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.
> 
> Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.
> 
> Israel *said* that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.
> 
> How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying again that resolution 181 had no meaning for EITHER DOI ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correctomundo!
Click to expand...


So the links that I showed you in which say the EXACT opposite are wrong ?


----------



## toastman

Has someone kept a record on how many of Tinmore's claims have been flushed down the toilet?? I've lost count.

Off the top of my head:


- Israel having no borders
- Resolution 181 being irrelevant for the declaration of Independence for both Israel and 'Palestine'
- That there never was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine
- That Israel has no land
- That no one won the 1948 Arab - Israeli war
- All of Israel being occupied
- That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948
- That Palestine was a country for the Palestinians established in 1924


Links have been provided for each of the above lies that say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Tinmore says, whereas Tinmore has not provided valid information to prove his claims. 

Seems like Tinmore is right, and everyone else is wrong


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance.  Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State."  They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else.  The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.
> 
> It is you that is blowing smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OK we agree on the acceptance.  The ongoing civil war in the month preceding the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a matter of record.  The
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community.  The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI.  But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.  It should be noted that the Arab Forces were already moving into attack positions months before hand.  The Arab League was already in the Territory by March, two months before Israel Independence.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We disagree here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LETTER DATED 29 NOVEMBER 1948 FROM ISRAELS FOREIGN MINISTER TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING ISRAELS APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND DECLARATION ACCEPTING OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CHARTER said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 14 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish people in Palestine by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people to independence in its own sovereign State *and in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947*. Since that date Israel has been consolidated administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of neighbouring States. It has so far achieved recognition by nineteen Powers.
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ S/1093  29 November 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that new States declare themselves sovereign, it is also true that these political action are often done in cooperation and coordination with other powers and organizations.
> 
> Again, you will not that both the Jewish State (1948) and the Arab State (1988) both cite the Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as of importance to their individual DoI's.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli propaganda.
> 
> The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance.  Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OK we agree on the acceptance.  The ongoing civil war in the month preceding the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a matter of record.  The
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community.  The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI.  But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.  It should be noted that the Arab Forces were already moving into attack positions months before hand.  The Arab League was already in the Territory by March, two months before Israel Independence.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We disagree here.
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that new States declare themselves sovereign, it is also true that these political action are often done in cooperation and coordination with other powers and organizations.
> 
> Again, you will not that both the Jewish State (1948) and the Arab State (1988) both cite the Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as of importance to their individual DoI's.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli propaganda.
> 
> The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you're so full of shit.
> 
> IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times
> 
> Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Let's look at this.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), of the Arab League, rejected it.  That has no impact on the ability and competency of the Jewish Agency to accept its potion of the Partition offer.



			
				Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
			
		

> *F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS*
> 
> When the independence of *either the Arab or the Jewish State* as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.





			
				Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
			
		

> *SOURCE:* A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947



Neither the Jewish Agency or the AHC could prevent the other from declaring independence.  Each had the right to self-determination, independent of the others preferences.



P F Tinmore said:


> Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.


*(COMMENT)*

It was not the duty of the Mandatory to implement GA/RES/181(II).  That responsibility was delegated to the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).



			
				B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE said:
			
		

> The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
> 
> On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." *
> 
> *SOURCE:* PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Israel *said* that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.


*(COMMENT)*

Interesting, given that less than six hours elapsed between the DoI and the attack by the Arab League Armies.  How could it have time to thumb its nose at anything?



P F Tinmore said:


> How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?


*(COMMENT)*

Well actually, it is the Palestinians that make the point.  I invite you to read the entire letter, but clearly, the Palestinians present a case for the importance and impact of the Resolution.



			
				EXCERPT:  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General said:
			
		

> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999



Again, there are those on the Palestinian side of the equation that would like to see the Resolution buried for the purpose of political expedience, it is still a matter of importance; being used by both sides.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK, here we are again.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover *of their country*.


*(COMMENT)*

Who's country?

The Palestinians had no country.



			
				UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
			
		

> The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7   29 January 1948



There is some mistake.  The perspectives differ. 



			
				UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine said:
			
		

> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/9  S/676  16 February 1948



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance.  Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli propaganda.
> 
> The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you're so full of shit.
> 
> IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times
> 
> Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really do not want to know but here.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7dMhE80dw]Alnakba English P1 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I await your response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181* (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states. Despite the proclamation of the State of Palestine, at the time the Palestine Liberation Organization did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[5] which was under Israeli control and claimed by it as Israel's capital. Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.
> 
> Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.
> 
> How can you divide an administration into two states._
Click to expand...

_

for students it can be a place to start their research.  For bloggers, it might be a place for "quick facts" but double checking facts elsewhere helps._


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you're so full of shit.
> 
> IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times
> 
> Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do not want to know but here.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7dMhE80dw]Alnakba English P1 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to condense down just what your long winded Aljazeera video says, apart from that Britain ruled Palestine and granted the inhabitants British Palestinian citizenship.
Click to expand...


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you're so full of shit. IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times
> Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate
> 
> 
> 
> You really do not want to know but here. Alnakba English P1 - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Palliwood?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do not want to know but here.
> 
> Alnakba English P1 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to condense down just what your long winded Aljazeera video says, apart from that Britain ruled Palestine and granted the inhabitants British Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you didn't really want to know.You asked for sources. There is one. It is the lead up to the 1948 war.
Click to expand...


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> I knew you didn't really want to know.You asked for sources. There is one. It is the lead up to the 1948 war.


Ahh, palliwood.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Yes, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), of the Arab League, rejected it. (resolution 181) That has no impact on the ability and competency of the Jewish Agency to accept its potion of the Partition offer.



That differs from what the British and Security Council said.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Interesting, given that less than six hours elapsed between the DoI and the attack by the Arab League Armies. How could it have time to thumb its nose at anything?



Israel violated the proposed borders, Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population *before* its declaration.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Who's country?
> 
> The Palestinians had no country.



Lets look at the facts.

Palestine was defined by international borders.

The Palestinians became a distinct nation of people upon the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by law.

Several sources called Palestine a state.

The British Mandate text called Palestine a country 11 times.

Where did you get your opinion that Palestine was not a country?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), of the Arab League, rejected it. (resolution 181) That has no impact on the ability and competency of the Jewish Agency to accept its potion of the Partition offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That differs from what the British and Security Council said.
Click to expand...




 Every link that you have provided to date has said the exact opposite to what you claim they say. Un 181 made the distinction either/or in which side needed to declare independence, it is there in the resolution. It is also there in the minutes of the UNSC acceptance of Israel's declaration of independence. The British had no say in the matter once they had handed control to the UN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, given that less than six hours elapsed between the DoI and the attack by the Arab League Armies. How could it have time to thumb its nose at anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel violated the proposed borders, Jerusalem, and the rights of the non Jewish population *before* its declaration.
Click to expand...





 In what way, was it in answer to hostile arab attacks by any chance ?


----------



## docmauser1

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's country?The Palestinians had no country.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the facts. Palestine was defined by international borders. The Palestinians became a distinct nation of people upon the break up of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by law. Several sources called Palestine a state. The British Mandate text called Palestine a country 11 times. Where did you get your opinion that Palestine was not a country?
Click to expand...

Who was that shakh, effendi, emir, sultan, pasha, president, prime-minister of that "country".


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you're so full of shit.
> 
> IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times
> 
> Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do not want to know but here.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7dMhE80dw]Alnakba English P1 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get you information from the Al Jazeera ??
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA well that explains why everything you say is wrong
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do not want to know but here.
> 
> Alnakba English P1 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get you information from the Al Jazeera ??
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA well that explains why everything you say is wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A compilation of British, Israeli, US, and other documents and recorded news reports.
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's country?
> 
> The Palestinians had no country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the facts.
> 
> Palestine was defined by international borders.
> 
> The Palestinians became a distinct nation of people upon the break up of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by law.
> 
> Several sources called Palestine a state.
> 
> The British Mandate text called Palestine a country 11 times.
> 
> Where did you get your opinion that Palestine was not a country?
Click to expand...


There is absolutely no history of Palestine being a country during this time. Nothing you say will change that.

If they were a country, why did they declare independence in 1948 and 1988?
Why did the Partition Plan mention the partition of a territory ?
Why is there no history of this place being a country?


*Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a de facto sovereign state.[13][14] Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers.*

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get you information from the Al Jazeera ??
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA well that explains why everything you say is wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A compilation of British, Israeli, US, and other documents and recorded news reports.
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, sure !!
> 
> So you get you information from a propaganda source. It's all starting to make sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

For fucks sake Tinmore, you can't even tell us WHEN Palestine became a country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A compilation of British, Israeli, US, and other documents and recorded news reports.
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, sure !!
> 
> So you get you information from a propaganda source. It's all starting to make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> British, Israeli, US, and other documents and recorded news reports are propaganda sources?
> 
> Oh yeah, and interviews of historians from several different countries.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> For fucks sake Tinmore, you can't even tell us WHEN Palestine became a country.



Did too.

August 6, 1924


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For fucks sake Tinmore, you can't even tell us WHEN Palestine became a country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did too.
> 
> August 6, 1924
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the Laussanne treaty, where there is no mention of Palestine being made a country for the Palestinians.

You still didn't answer my questions. Read my previous posts


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, sure !!
> 
> So you get you information from a propaganda source. It's all starting to make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British, Israeli, US, and other documents and recorded news reports are propaganda sources?
> 
> Oh yeah, and interviews of historians from several different countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll watch the video later. Either way, I'm certain it will paint a different picture about the 1948 war and the events preceding it
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For fucks sake Tinmore, you can't even tell us WHEN Palestine became a country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did too.
> 
> August 6, 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Laussanne treaty, where there is no mention of Palestine being made a country for the Palestinians.
> 
> You still didn't answer my questions. Read my previous posts
Click to expand...


It didn't mention any of the successor states in the region. It did, however, release them from Turkish rule so that succession could take place.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Nonsense.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's country?
> 
> The Palestinians had no country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the facts.
> 
> Palestine was defined by international borders.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yes, it was defined by the territory which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Principal Allied Powers.  It had nothing to do with the people inhabiting the area, territory, or region.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians became a distinct nation of people upon the break up of the Ottoman Empire.


*(COMMENT)*

No.  The people assumed a distinction that was given by Mandate and the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by law.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the law as created and written by the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> Several sources called Palestine a state.
> 
> The British Mandate text called Palestine a country 11 times.


*(COMMENT)*

No official source calls Palestine a State until after it Declaration of Independence in November 1988.

You have to understand what the "term" Palestine means, and where it came from.



			
				The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*​*SOURCE:* The Palestine Order in Council, 1922





P F Tinmore said:


> Where did you get your opinion that Palestine was not a country?


*(COMMENT)*

I don't image things that are not.  The term "Palestine" refers to the territory for which Mandate for Palestine applies; nothing more.  Where did you get the impression it was a state?  If the answer is the statements you've made above, I urge you to reevaluate.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Read the Treaty.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For fucks sake Tinmore, you can't even tell us WHEN Palestine became a country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did too.
> 
> August 6, 1924
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

As we discussed in Posting #950, there is nothing in the Lausanne Treaty to suggest that Palestine was made a separate country.  Palestine is not mentioned in the Treaty.  It was inclusive territory under Article 3 (Territorial Clause), called Syria.  It was exempt from the Boundary Commission determinations by the treaty.  This use, claim or interpretation of the Treaty language to suggest the Treaty (somehow) conferred statehood or recognized a new nation of "Palestine" is bogus.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

My, my, my...

All this lather and sweat and high blood pressure over Palestinian spin-doctoring about Treaty A or B and whether or not we should interpret them as having had a _Magic Wand_ waved over their heads and somebody sprinkling _Magic Sovereignty Fairy Dust_ over their heads and implying that they were a 'country' as of such-and-so a date...

In the Real World, if you have never been officially recognized as a sovereign and self-ruling and autonomous nation, complete with diplomatic relations or status amongst powers that actually count or amount to something, and unless you have a track record of self-government and a cultural and social and political and economic identity that is recognized by the outside world as something unique to yourselves, then you are not a 'Nation', in any practical and meaningful sense of the word.

That is doubly true if you have to conjure-up Magic Moments where Foreign Government A, in connection with Foreign Government B and Foreign Government C, entered into some Treaty or another which obliquely and obscurely implied, intentionally or by latter-day revisionist interpretation and partisan spin-doctoring - that you might have attained the status of 'Nation' on Alternating Tuesdays when your Council of Grand Poobahs stood on one foot, and only if the Grand Mufti's great-aunt was wearing a blue burqha with slit-to-the-thigh cutaway segments.

Bahhhhhhh... Humbug... really weak mojo... if you've never been a self-governing country within the framework of your present dominant population demographic, then you've never truly been a country.

Which is the case here... the Palestinians are an artificial, fabricated, latter-day construct designed to provide an over-arching umbrella label for the disagreeably diverse Arab-Muslim population fragments residing in Old Palestine (and today's Rump Palestine)... they were never a unified People, and they were never a Country or Nation in their own right.

'Palestine', as a noun, is merely a time-worn placeholder descriptor for a given region, and 'Palestinian' is merely a convenience-label for the diverse and degenerate and impotent descendants of the Arabs who flooded and conquered the region some centuries ago, and some of the surrender monkeys of even older local blood-stock, who caved-in under the pressure of conquest and Dhimmitude, and who found it easier to go over to the Dark Side.

Eventually, Nature was bound to *de*-select such weak and degenerate stock.

As seems to be happening in our own times.

Palestine = a sovereign nation, prior to 1948?

Don't make me laugh.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's country?
> 
> The Palestinians had no country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets look at the facts.
> 
> Palestine was defined by international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, it was defined by the territory which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Principal Allied Powers.  It had nothing to do with the people inhabiting the area, territory, or region.
Click to expand...

Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.

Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestines territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypts autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.

The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The Palestinians became a distinct nation of people upon the break up of the Ottoman Empire.





			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> No. The people assumed a distinction that was given by Mandate and the Allied Powers.





			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by law.





			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> Yes, the law as created and written by the Allied Powers.



The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians became a distinct nation of people upon the break up of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The people assumed a distinction that was given by Mandate and the Allied Powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the law as created and written by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...




 Why have you skipped over this part of your link, don't you want the full truth to be seen ?

* 4
Although the nationality of Palestines inhabitants remained in transition before 1925, this eight-year period between 1917 and 1925 determined the future of the countrys native inhabitants and migrants. While the 1922 Palestine Mandate and the Treaty of Lausanne recognized a distinct nationality for Palestine, nationality of this country lacked clear domestic regulation. This paper wishes to explore this ambiguous or anomalous situation,4 to borrow a term from Lassa Oppenheim. *

Or this which shows that there was no Nationality Law for Palestine

*Trans-Jordan eventually enacted its Nationality Law on 1 May 1928.16 Article1 of this Law conferred Trans-Jordanian nationality on all Ottoman subjects (citizens) residing in the territory of Trans-Jordan retroactively as of 6 August 1924  the date on which the Treaty of Lausanne came into force. Trans-Jordanian nationality formed a distinct nationality from that of Palestine, not only in law but also in practice, throughout the mandate.17 Trans-Jordanians, for example, were required to obtain official permission to be admitted into Palestine, albeit with certain favorable facilities compared with other foreigners (such as exemption from possessing passports to enter, and work in, Palestine*

 Then this that says the Palestinians were still ottoman nationals


*In addition to being Ottoman citizens on the basis of the international law of state succession, Palestines inhabitants continued at the same time to be Ottomans in accordance with the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law. The ongoing validity of the 1869 Law was part of the general application of Ottoman laws in Palestine. Thus, apart from military laws executed by military courts, all civil matters according to the Ottoman law were dealt by civil courts. Article 1 of the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 considered the habitual residents in Palestine Ottoman citizens *.


*Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be gradually regarded as Palestinians.*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I think our friend "Phoenall," using a slight different line of approach, nails the intent and practical effect of the law and treaty.



Phoenall said:


> *Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be gradually regarded as Palestinians.*


*(COMMENT)*

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have so far reaching an impact as you are attempting to assume it had.  The operative guidance on the issue, for the "Palestinians," was the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council of 1925 and NOT the Treaty of Lausanne.



			
				SECTION III.  QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION said:
			
		

> 3.Q.	What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?
> 
> A.	The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ Annual Report by Mandatory 31 December 1925



This was discussed in Posting #72 in the Thread named "UN chief admits bias against Israel."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think our friend "Phoenall," using a slight different line of approach, nails the intent and practical effect of the law and treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be gradually regarded as Palestinians.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not have so far reaching an impact as you are attempting to assume it had.  The operative guidance on the issue, for the "Palestinians," was the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council of 1925 and NOT the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION III.  QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Q.	What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?
> 
> A.	The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ Annual Report by Mandatory 31 December 1925
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was discussed in Posting #72 in the Thread named "UN chief admits bias against Israel."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The broad bush strokes of you citations are, essentially drawing an improper and invalid set of inferences which you attempt to use as evidence of something that did not happen.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?


*(COMMENT)*

You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians."  Nothing can be further from the truth.

The Treaty of Lausanne can well after the fact and merely codified some principles that were already well establish and in effect at the time. 

"Palestine" does not mean the "State of" or the "Nation of" anything.  When you read that word, you might as well mentally line it out and replace it with the phrase "The Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."

When you read the phrase "Palestinian Citizenship," you might as well mentally line that out and replace it with the phrase "Citizens of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."

The Treaty of Lausanne did not confer any special status on the Palestinian _(the inhabitance and indigenous population to the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine.")_  In the case of citizenship and nationality, it merely set for the record that which was already in place by the Orders in Council of 1922 and 1925, as implemented by the Mandate.  The Treaty set no borders relative to the Mandate and made no special state.  It did not do anything you suggest in terms of national sovereignty.  In terms of the Mandate, it had no appreciable effect or impact to what was already enacted.  The Treaty wasn't even mentioned in the 1925 year-end report by the Mandatory.  It was not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

Really weak mojo on the part of the Palestinians and their sympathizers... trying to define a 'Magic Moment' when somebody authoritatively sprinkled _Magic Sovereignty Fairy Dust _over them to create a nation. Bahhhh... humbug. Then again, it's all they have. Must be tough, tryin' to sit at the Big Boys poker table with a pair of deuces.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The broad bush strokes of you citations are, essentially drawing an improper and invalid set of inferences which you attempt to use as evidence of something that did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians."  Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne can well after the fact and merely codified some principles that were already well establish and in effect at the time.
> 
> "Palestine" does not mean the "State of" or the "Nation of" anything.  When you read that word, you might as well mentally line it out and replace it with the phrase "The Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."
> 
> When you read the phrase "Palestinian Citizenship," you might as well mentally line that out and replace it with the phrase "Citizens of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not confer any special status on the Palestinian _(the inhabitance and indigenous population to the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine.")_  In the case of citizenship and nationality, it merely set for the record that which was already in place by the Orders in Council of 1922 and 1925, as implemented by the Mandate.  The Treaty set no borders relative to the Mandate and made no special state.  It did not do anything you suggest in terms of national sovereignty.  In terms of the Mandate, it had no appreciable effect or impact to what was already enacted.  The Treaty wasn't even mentioned in the 1925 year-end report by the Mandatory.  It was not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.

It had no land, no borders, and no citizens.

All of that was Palestinian.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think our friend "Phoenall," using a slight different line of approach, nails the intent and practical effect of the law and treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Although the inhabitants of Palestine remained Ottoman citizens according to international law, in practice they started to be gradually regarded as Palestinians.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not have so far reaching an impact as you are attempting to assume it had.  The operative guidance on the issue, for the "Palestinians," was the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council of 1925 and NOT the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION III.  QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Q.	What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?
> 
> A.	The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ Annual Report by Mandatory 31 December 1925
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was discussed in Posting #72 in the Thread named "UN chief admits bias against Israel."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?
Click to expand...




 Because it shows that your Islamic source for the Palestinian nationality is flawed in the extreme, and your refusal to add all the pertinent facts shows that you are aware of this. So why run with a flawed imperfect truncated fantasy when you know that it will be destroyed by truth and reality. 
Your facts are not facts just one persons POV on the situation, who happens to be very biased due to his Islamic heritage. The facts are what is actually written down by those who agreed the various treaties and rules regarding the land and people. It also seems that you forget that France was also a mandated power of Palestine, and partitioned their portion into arab states that declared independence and enacted nationality laws.

 So why didn't your friends the Palestinians not enact Nationality laws ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think our friend "Phoenall," using a slight different line of approach, nails the intent and practical effect of the law and treaty.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not have so far reaching an impact as you are attempting to assume it had.  The operative guidance on the issue, for the "Palestinians," was the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council of 1925 and NOT the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> This was discussed in Posting #72 in the Thread named "UN chief admits bias against Israel."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it shows that your Islamic source for the Palestinian nationality is flawed in the extreme, and your refusal to add all the pertinent facts shows that you are aware of this. So why run with a flawed imperfect truncated fantasy when you know that it will be destroyed by truth and reality.
> Your facts are not facts just one persons POV on the situation, who happens to be very biased due to his Islamic heritage. The facts are what is actually written down by those who agreed the various treaties and rules regarding the land and people. It also seems that you forget that France was also a mandated power of Palestine, and partitioned their portion into arab states that declared independence and enacted nationality laws.
> 
> *So why didn't your friends the Palestinians not enact Nationality laws ?*
Click to expand...


Illegal foreign military occupation.


----------



## Kondor3

Chasing sugar-plum visions of a Unified People Who Never Were, and a Sovereign Nation That Never Was...

Somebody call Ghostbusters...

'Cause that's what you're chasin'... ghosts...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The broad bush strokes of you citations are, essentially drawing an improper and invalid set of inferences which you attempt to use as evidence of something that did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians."  Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne can well after the fact and merely codified some principles that were already well establish and in effect at the time.
> 
> "Palestine" does not mean the "State of" or the "Nation of" anything.  When you read that word, you might as well mentally line it out and replace it with the phrase "The Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."
> 
> When you read the phrase "Palestinian Citizenship," you might as well mentally line that out and replace it with the phrase "Citizens of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not confer any special status on the Palestinian _(the inhabitance and indigenous population to the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine.")_  In the case of citizenship and nationality, it merely set for the record that which was already in place by the Orders in Council of 1922 and 1925, as implemented by the Mandate.  The Treaty set no borders relative to the Mandate and made no special state.  It did not do anything you suggest in terms of national sovereignty.  In terms of the Mandate, it had no appreciable effect or impact to what was already enacted.  The Treaty wasn't even mentioned in the 1925 year-end report by the Mandatory.  It was not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.
> 
> It had no land, no borders, and no citizens.
> 
> All of that was Palestinian.
Click to expand...




No it was just part of the original Palestine that existed under ottoman rule, that was partitioned by the mandated powers into separate arab states and one Jewish one. Before the partition of Palestine into Syria, Iraq and trans Jordan it had no land, no borders, no citizens and no identity. After the mandate the remainder still had no land, no borders, no citizens and no identity according to International law.
 AND THAT IS THE DECIDING FACTOR, NOT SOME BIASED MUSLIM REWRITTING THE FACTS


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Chasing sugar-plum visions of a Unified People Who Never Were, and a Sovereign Nation That Never Was...
> 
> Somebody call Ghostbusters...
> 
> 'Cause that's what you're chasin'... ghosts...



So says Israeli propaganda bullshit.

Got links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The broad bush strokes of you citations are, essentially drawing an improper and invalid set of inferences which you attempt to use as evidence of something that did not happen.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians."  Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne can well after the fact and merely codified some principles that were already well establish and in effect at the time.
> 
> "Palestine" does not mean the "State of" or the "Nation of" anything.  When you read that word, you might as well mentally line it out and replace it with the phrase "The Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."
> 
> When you read the phrase "Palestinian Citizenship," you might as well mentally line that out and replace it with the phrase "Citizens of the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine."
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not confer any special status on the Palestinian _(the inhabitance and indigenous population to the Territory under the Mandate of Palestine.")_  In the case of citizenship and nationality, it merely set for the record that which was already in place by the Orders in Council of 1922 and 1925, as implemented by the Mandate.  The Treaty set no borders relative to the Mandate and made no special state.  It did not do anything you suggest in terms of national sovereignty.  In terms of the Mandate, it had no appreciable effect or impact to what was already enacted.  The Treaty wasn't even mentioned in the 1925 year-end report by the Mandatory.  It was not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.
> 
> It had no land, no borders, and no citizens.
> 
> All of that was Palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it was just part of the original Palestine that existed under ottoman rule, *that was partitioned by the mandated powers into separate arab states and one Jewish one. *Before the partition of Palestine into Syria, Iraq and trans Jordan it had no land, no borders, no citizens and no identity. After the mandate the remainder still had no land, no borders, no citizens and no identity according to International law.
> AND THAT IS THE DECIDING FACTOR, NOT SOME BIASED MUSLIM REWRITTING THE FACTS
Click to expand...


Got a link mentioning "Jewish State?"


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that changer or refute the facts that I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it shows that your Islamic source for the Palestinian nationality is flawed in the extreme, and your refusal to add all the pertinent facts shows that you are aware of this. So why run with a flawed imperfect truncated fantasy when you know that it will be destroyed by truth and reality.
> Your facts are not facts just one persons POV on the situation, who happens to be very biased due to his Islamic heritage. The facts are what is actually written down by those who agreed the various treaties and rules regarding the land and people. It also seems that you forget that France was also a mandated power of Palestine, and partitioned their portion into arab states that declared independence and enacted nationality laws.
> 
> *So why didn't your friends the Palestinians not enact Nationality laws ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal foreign military occupation.
Click to expand...




 They invited them in, and then tried to claim all the land as arab, so why didn't they also enact a Nationality Law at the same time. Israel managed to do it while over run by an ILLEGAL FORIEGN MILITARY OCCUPATION and fighting for their very existence.

 A copout answer because you know deep down that you are losing the battle


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chasing sugar-plum visions of a Unified People Who Never Were, and a Sovereign Nation That Never Was...
> 
> Somebody call Ghostbusters...
> 
> 'Cause that's what you're chasin'... ghosts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says Israeli propaganda bullshit.
> 
> Got links?
Click to expand...




 Yes the same ones that you used and hacked about to get them to support your POV, only this time in their entirety


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.
> 
> It had no land, no borders, and no citizens.
> 
> All of that was Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it was just part of the original Palestine that existed under ottoman rule, *that was partitioned by the mandated powers into separate arab states and one Jewish one. *Before the partition of Palestine into Syria, Iraq and trans Jordan it had no land, no borders, no citizens and no identity. After the mandate the remainder still had no land, no borders, no citizens and no identity according to International law.
> AND THAT IS THE DECIDING FACTOR, NOT SOME BIASED MUSLIM REWRITTING THE FACTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link mentioning "Jewish State?"
Click to expand...





 Got loads starting with the Macmahon letters and ending with the UN acceptance of a Jewish state in 1948, a state that had enacted Nationality Laws by the way while under HOSTILE FORIEGN MILITARY INVASION


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chasing sugar-plum visions of a Unified People Who Never Were, and a Sovereign Nation That Never Was...
> 
> Somebody call Ghostbusters...
> 
> 'Cause that's what you're chasin'... ghosts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says Israeli propaganda bullshit.
> 
> Got links?
Click to expand...

I am not Israeli.

I am not spewing propaganda.

My post was not bullshit.

I served-up valid personal opinion.

Substantiated by the fact that no Palestinian Nation was recognized formally by the outside world as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate.

Unlike Israel, whose recognition by major powers began on that very day; culminating in their formal recognition by the United Nations in 1949.

As to links... links to what?... personal opinion? You can already see that expression.

And, if by some chance, you can demonstrate that Palestine was recognized diplomatically and on a broad international basis as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate, *DO* feel free to serve that up here...

Like I said... you're sittin' at the Big Boys poker table, holding a pair of deuces... and nobody's buyin' the bluff... you've been called... must be a bitch.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it shows that your Islamic source for the Palestinian nationality is flawed in the extreme, and your refusal to add all the pertinent facts shows that you are aware of this. So why run with a flawed imperfect truncated fantasy when you know that it will be destroyed by truth and reality.
> Your facts are not facts just one persons POV on the situation, who happens to be very biased due to his Islamic heritage. The facts are what is actually written down by those who agreed the various treaties and rules regarding the land and people. It also seems that you forget that France was also a mandated power of Palestine, and partitioned their portion into arab states that declared independence and enacted nationality laws.
> 
> *So why didn't your friends the Palestinians not enact Nationality laws ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal foreign military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They invited them in, and then tried to claim all the land as arab, so why didn't they also enact a Nationality Law at the same time. Israel managed to do it while over run by an ILLEGAL FORIEGN MILITARY OCCUPATION and fighting for their very existence.
> 
> A copout answer because you know deep down that you are losing the battle
Click to expand...


Not really.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. The world is starting to see that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chasing sugar-plum visions of a Unified People Who Never Were, and a Sovereign Nation That Never Was...
> 
> Somebody call Ghostbusters...
> 
> 'Cause that's what you're chasin'... ghosts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says Israeli propaganda bullshit.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not Israeli.
> 
> I am not spewing propaganda.
> 
> My post was not bullshit.
> 
> I served-up valid personal opinion.
> 
> Substantiated by the fact that no Palestinian Nation was recognized formally by the outside world as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate.
> 
> Unlike Israel, whose recognition by major powers began on that very day; culminating in their formal recognition by the United Nations in 1949.
> 
> As to links... links to what?... personal opinion? You can already see that expression.
> 
> And, if by some chance, you can demonstrate that Palestine was recognized diplomatically and on a broad international basis as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate, *DO* feel free to serve that up here...
> 
> Like I said... you're sittin' at the Big Boys poker table, holding a pair of deuces... and nobody's buyin' the bluff... you've been called... must be a bitch.
Click to expand...




> I served-up valid personal opinion.



That is a relief. I thought you were passing that crap off as fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think our friend "Phoenall," using a slight different line of approach, nails the intent and practical effect of the law and treaty.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not have so far reaching an impact as you are attempting to assume it had.  The operative guidance on the issue, for the "Palestinians," was the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council of 1925 and NOT the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> This was discussed in Posting #72 in the Thread named "UN chief admits bias against Israel."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that change or refute the facts that I posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it shows that your Islamic source for the Palestinian nationality is flawed in the extreme, and your refusal to add all the pertinent facts shows that you are aware of this. So why run with a flawed imperfect truncated fantasy when you know that it will be destroyed by truth and reality.
> Your facts are not facts just one persons POV on the situation, who happens to be very biased due to his Islamic heritage. The facts are what is actually written down by those who agreed the various treaties and rules regarding the land and people. It also seems that you forget that France was also a mandated power of Palestine, and partitioned their portion into arab states that declared independence and enacted nationality laws.
> 
> So why didn't your friends the Palestinians not enact Nationality laws ?
Click to expand...


OK, but how does any of that change or refute the facts that I posted?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So says Israeli propaganda bullshit.
> 
> Got links?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not Israeli.
> 
> I am not spewing propaganda.
> 
> My post was not bullshit.
> 
> I served-up valid personal opinion.
> 
> Substantiated by the fact that no Palestinian Nation was recognized formally by the outside world as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate.
> 
> Unlike Israel, whose recognition by major powers began on that very day; culminating in their formal recognition by the United Nations in 1949.
> 
> As to links... links to what?... personal opinion? You can already see that expression.
> 
> And, if by some chance, you can demonstrate that Palestine was recognized diplomatically and on a broad international basis as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate, *DO* feel free to serve that up here...
> 
> Like I said... you're sittin' at the Big Boys poker table, holding a pair of deuces... and nobody's buyin' the bluff... you've been called... must be a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I served-up valid personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a relief. I thought you were passing that crap off as fact.
Click to expand...


You are the one trying to retroactively conjure up a pretended nationality out of thin air and I'm the one posting crap? Her a funny guy, Tinny. Especially fer a guy only holding a pair of deuces at the Big Boy table.

Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not Israeli.
> 
> I am not spewing propaganda.
> 
> My post was not bullshit.
> 
> I served-up valid personal opinion.
> 
> Substantiated by the fact that no Palestinian Nation was recognized formally by the outside world as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate.
> 
> Unlike Israel, whose recognition by major powers began on that very day; culminating in their formal recognition by the United Nations in 1949.
> 
> As to links... links to what?... personal opinion? You can already see that expression.
> 
> And, if by some chance, you can demonstrate that Palestine was recognized diplomatically and on a broad international basis as of the moment of the termination of the British Mandate, *DO* feel free to serve that up here...
> 
> Like I said... you're sittin' at the Big Boys poker table, holding a pair of deuces... and nobody's buyin' the bluff... you've been called... must be a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I served-up valid personal opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a relief. I thought you were passing that crap off as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one trying to retroactively conjure up a pretended nationality out of thin air and I'm the one posting crap? Her a funny guy, Tinny. Especially fer a guy only holding a pair of deuces at the Big Boy table.
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...


OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, this is an emotional response, not a rational response.



P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

You are using a short title here:  "Mandate"


The "Mandate of Palestine" is most definitely a "PLACE;" --- within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.  
The "Administrator of the Mandate" was the UK, as determined by the Allied Powers and approved by the League of Nations.
Using "Mandate" in the form of the mission, was basically to see "the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone;" as defined the directive: "that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

In politics, seldom is anything certain and nothing lasts forever.  So in the sense that the Mandate (as a mission) was temporary, then that much is correct.  It is fair to say that the intent _(no matter how sinister you make it out to be)_ had the aim of being an institution that would ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question; not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world _(then or now)_. 



P F Tinmore said:


> It had no land, no borders, and no citizens.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too!  You cannot claim on one hand that the Treaty of Lausanne, and then say it has:  "no land, no borders, and no citizens."  It has whatever the Mandatory and the Allied Power says it has.  



			
				San Remo Convention Agreement by the Allied Powers said:
			
		

> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> *SOURCE:* 04/25/1920 Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document)





P F Tinmore said:


> All of that was Palestinian.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, you have this wrong.  Even in the Treaty of Lausanne, one can see that "Palestine" (the territory) was such a subsidiary element, that it was not mentioned as a stand-alone or autonomous territory.  

You are also wrong, in that to be "Palestinian" was to be defined by the Allied Powers.  What it meant to be "Palestinian" was defined by the Allied Powers.  Where the borders were was a decision of the Allied Powers.  The Type "A" Mandates over the territories of Syria (including Lebanon), Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Palestine (including Jordan), were defined by what was agreed upon by the Allied Powers.  The 23% of the Mandate for Palestine we talk about today, was a very small fraction indeed of what the Allied Powers exercised responsibility over.  But yet, as an Article 22 territory not able to stand alone (then or now - economically, financially, militarily, territorially, or politically) has become extremely troublesome _(Arabs fighting over the last crumbs to the cookie)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a relief. I thought you were passing that crap off as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one trying to retroactively conjure up a pretended nationality out of thin air and I'm the one posting crap? Her a funny guy, Tinny. Especially fer a guy only holding a pair of deuces at the Big Boy table.
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.
Click to expand...

That's not the challenge.

No one is disputing that some of that obscure Treaty happy horseshit CAN be interpreted in such-and-so a manner...

People are disputing whether such interpretations were OPERATIVE at the time of the termination of the Mandate, in a practical sense...

If they were not operative in a PRACTICAL sense, then they do not count, for all intents and purposes...

You are chasing the Ghost of Ramadan Past...

And it does not signify in the Real World...

Like I said, you're holdin' a pair of deuces...

It's not enough to win the game, at the Big Boy table...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, this is an emotional response, not a rational response.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are using a short title here:  "Mandate"
> 
> 
> The "Mandate of Palestine" is most definitely a "PLACE;" --- within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.
> The "Administrator of the Mandate" was the UK, as determined by the Allied Powers and approved by the League of Nations.
> Using "Mandate" in the form of the mission, was basically to see "the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone;" as defined the directive: "that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> In politics, seldom is anything certain and nothing lasts forever.  So in the sense that the Mandate (as a mission) was temporary, then that much is correct.  It is fair to say that the intent _(no matter how sinister you make it out to be)_ had the aim of being an institution that would ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question; not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world _(then or now)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no land, no borders, and no citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too!  You cannot claim on one hand that the Treaty of Lausanne, and then say it has:  "no land, no borders, and no citizens."  It has whatever the Mandatory and the Allied Power says it has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> San Remo Convention Agreement by the Allied Powers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> *SOURCE:* 04/25/1920 Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of that was Palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, you have this wrong.  Even in the Treaty of Lausanne, one can see that "Palestine" (the territory) was such a subsidiary element, that it was not mentioned as a stand-alone or autonomous territory.
> 
> You are also wrong, in that to be "Palestinian" was to be defined by the Allied Powers.  What it meant to be "Palestinian" was defined by the Allied Powers.  Where the borders were was a decision of the Allied Powers.  The Type "A" Mandates over the territories of Syria (including Lebanon), Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Palestine (including Jordan), were defined by what was agreed upon by the Allied Powers.  The 23% of the Mandate for Palestine we talk about today, was a very small fraction indeed of what the Allied Powers exercised responsibility over.  But yet, as an Article 22 territory not able to stand alone (then or now - economically, financially, militarily, territorially, or politically) has become extremely troublesome _(Arabs fighting over the last crumbs to the cookie)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The mandate was not an entity or place. It was an administration that was temporarily assigned to Palestine.





			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> "the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone;"



Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Thank you for proving my point._"


Now, all you need is for your point to be recognized, globally, and to be made operative, retroactively, to May 14, 1948, and you're all set...

Wake me up, when something happens in connection with that, eh?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one trying to retroactively conjure up a pretended nationality out of thin air and I'm the one posting crap? Her a funny guy, Tinny. Especially fer a guy only holding a pair of deuces at the Big Boy table.
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the challenge.
> 
> No one is disputing that some of that obscure Treaty happy horseshit CAN be interpreted in such-and-so a manner...
> 
> People are disputing whether such interpretations were OPERATIVE at the time of the termination of the Mandate, in a practical sense...
> 
> If they were not operative in a PRACTICAL sense, then they do not count, for all intents and purposes...
> 
> You are chasing the Ghost of Ramadan Past...
> 
> And it does not signify in the Real World...
> 
> Like I said, you're holdin' a pair of deuces...
> 
> It's not enough to win the game, at the Big Boy table...
Click to expand...


You can babble on and continue to make a fool of yourself or you can prove one of my points to be incorrect.

It is your choice.


----------



## MHunterB

"valid personal opinion"  ?????

Please furnish an example of what you'd consider 'invalid' personal opinion, and explain the difference.  THX


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> "valid personal opinion"  ?????
> 
> Please furnish an example of what you'd consider 'invalid' personal opinion, and explain the difference.  THX



The sky is green.

Figure it out for yourself.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

No, I don't agree to your point.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "provisional recognition" of a defined nation had not been determined.

It was just as clear, that indigenous populations where divided:

Those ready to stand alone.
Those NOT ready to stand alone.

They Allied Powers could have just as easily decided a different course of action, one in which the people we call "Palestinians" today were to be absorbed by either Syria or Jordan; or some combination thereto.

Nothing in what I said, or even what the Allied Powers said, assured that there would be a recognition of Palestine.  They could have completely dissolved that concept in given it to someone else as part of their sovereign territory.   The Allied Powers might have never created a Palestine.

Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."  They didn't have to create a territory of "Palestine."  In retrospect, with the scope and nature of the regional Arabs not being able to stand alone, may be the Allied Powers should have given sovereignty to one of the sons of the King of the Hedjaz.

But in what I said, doesn't in any way support your thesis that "Palestine" should in any way be provisionally recognized for autonomy.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Kondor3,  _et al,_

I think we're past that point.



Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Thank you for proving my point._"
> 
> 
> 
> Now, all you need is for your point to be recognized, globally, and to be made operative, retroactively, to May 14, 1948, and you're all set...
> 
> Wake me up, when something happens in connection with that, eh?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I think the Allied Powers gave much to much credit to the Arab-Palestinian, as a indigenous population with the character, morality, and social capacity that could evolve into peaceful nation.  If they had such qualities, they would have never opened Jihad and the Fedayeen would have never threatened genocide.  It would have been unthinkable _(then and even now as they pursue such a legacy)_.

Retroactive political play is impractical.  No one actually thinks that they would trade a thriving, productive, economically sound, socially integrated society, and an independently prosperous nation like Israel for a failed Islamic Jihadist State like Palestine; which is still squabbling over who governs, can't pay their bills, are to busy promoting armed struggle and conflict to develop economically and commercially.  Nobody wants another terrorist dominated, Jihadist trained welfare state they have to rebuild.  One needs only look at the governing bodies in Ramallah and Gaza to decide if they want any piece of that.  No matter what standard you apply, the Palestinian represents a culture that has generations of offspring trained to be nothing more that Jihadist and Fedayeen.  Of what value it that?  Under Article 22 of the Covenant to the League of Nations, they are a people not ready to stand alone - alongside the other nations of the world.  They still haven't reached that point.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal foreign military occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They invited them in, and then tried to claim all the land as arab, so why didn't they also enact a Nationality Law at the same time. Israel managed to do it while over run by an ILLEGAL FORIEGN MILITARY OCCUPATION and fighting for their very existence.
> 
> A copout answer because you know deep down that you are losing the battle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. The world is starting to see that.
Click to expand...





 What legal and moral high ground, they are terrorist mass murderers who kill innocent children out of some belief that the world will capitulate and give them Israel.  The legalities are that according to a Judge well versed in International Law the Israeli's have a better claim to the west bank and gaza than anyone else. Their morals are lower than those of a flea ridden alley cat on heat. Even your own links say they have no legal standing or rights, yet still Israel offers to deal with them honourably and decently. All your friends do is make ILLEGAL PRE CONDITIONS.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that change or refute the facts that I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it shows that your Islamic source for the Palestinian nationality is flawed in the extreme, and your refusal to add all the pertinent facts shows that you are aware of this. So why run with a flawed imperfect truncated fantasy when you know that it will be destroyed by truth and reality.
> Your facts are not facts just one persons POV on the situation, who happens to be very biased due to his Islamic heritage. The facts are what is actually written down by those who agreed the various treaties and rules regarding the land and people. It also seems that you forget that France was also a mandated power of Palestine, and partitioned their portion into arab states that declared independence and enacted nationality laws.
> 
> So why didn't your friends the Palestinians not enact Nationality laws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but how does any of that change or refute the facts that I posted?
Click to expand...




 Because the very fact that your source is a biased and flawed one shows that your facts are nothing more than fantasies.

 Now why didn't the Palestinians enact a Nationality Law like all the other nations made out of the mandate for Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> "valid personal opinion"  ?????
> 
> Please furnish an example of what you'd consider 'invalid' personal opinion, and explain the difference.  THX
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sky is green.
> 
> Figure it out for yourself.
Click to expand...





 Under certain weather conditions the sky can actually go green................


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the challenge.
> 
> No one is disputing that some of that obscure Treaty happy horseshit CAN be interpreted in such-and-so a manner...
> 
> People are disputing whether such interpretations were OPERATIVE at the time of the termination of the Mandate, in a practical sense...
> 
> If they were not operative in a PRACTICAL sense, then they do not count, for all intents and purposes...
> 
> You are chasing the Ghost of Ramadan Past...
> 
> And it does not signify in the Real World...
> 
> Like I said, you're holdin' a pair of deuces...
> 
> It's not enough to win the game, at the Big Boy table...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can babble on and continue to make a fool of yourself or you can prove one of my points to be incorrect.
> 
> It is your choice.
Click to expand...

Wassa madda, Tinny?

Can't face the idea that what you're driving at doesn't matter a damn, at the Big Boy table?

I'm not the one playing - or coming off as - the fool.

I'm not the one trying to conjure-up a Ghost of a Country That Never Was.

If you're looking for 'fools' in any such dialogue, you may wish to be a little more careful with your targeting choices.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Even you have to agree that the perception of the Palestinian holding the "legal and moral high ground" is nothing more than an illusion; a magicians trick, a variation of Three-card Monte.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They invited them in, and then tried to claim all the land as arab, so why didn't they also enact a Nationality Law at the same time. Israel managed to do it while over run by an ILLEGAL FORIEGN MILITARY OCCUPATION and fighting for their very existence.
> 
> A copout answer because you know deep down that you are losing the battle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. The world is starting to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What legal and moral high ground, they are terrorist mass murderers who kill innocent children out of some belief that the world will capitulate and give them Israel.  The legalities are that according to a Judge well versed in International Law the Israeli's have a better claim to the west bank and gaza than anyone else. Their morals are lower than those of a flea ridden alley cat on heat. Even your own links say they have no legal standing or rights, yet still Israel offers to deal with them honourably and decently. All your friends do is make ILLEGAL PRE CONDITIONS.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

No one can honestly say they hold the "legal and moral high ground" when they openly declare genocide, have invaded Israeli territory with conventional force, and promoted armed struggle through the use of any means necessary including massacres, piracy, hijackings, suicide bombings and indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets.  The Palestinian can't possibly hold the "legal and moral high ground" when they conduct summer terrorism training camps for children.  All this is a matter of record, and establishes a series of criminal past practices and a history of hostile terrorist behaviors.

Yes, the Palestinians have shifted tactics, and periodically tone down their activities, but that is only really moving the walnut shell on the felt and asking where the pea is.  It is a trick.  The Palestinians play the same game with the peace.  They Israelis go to the table and the Palestinians shift and move the terms around then ask where the peace is.

You cannot play the "legal and moral high ground" card with me.  There are very few things that are absolute in this universe; but one of them is that you simply can't connect a Jihadist and Fedayeen Palestinians and "legal and moral high ground" without creating an oxymoron.  It violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  You can't measure the integrity of a Palestinian and know its honesty and morality at the same time.  You can either see one playing the part of a virtual victim with the sad face - or - seen where it been by its past history of behavior and path of destruction.  But you can't see them both in an honest effort at the negotiation table forging the peace.





A three-card Monte game in Jaffa, Israel (2005).
It has all the hallmarks of the con; the cards are slightly curved,
the corners have been bent and the dealer has the cash in hand
to conceal any sleight-of-hand.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a relief. I thought you were passing that crap off as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one trying to retroactively conjure up a pretended nationality out of thin air and I'm the one posting crap? Her a funny guy, Tinny. Especially fer a guy only holding a pair of deuces at the Big Boy table.
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.
Click to expand...


They are claims, not fact. And your claims are constantly dismantled and flushed down the toilet (for the specific claims I'm referring to, see post #989)

And even when we give you indisputable evidence to dispute your so called 'facts',. you STILL claim you are right and we are wrong.

You need to stop posting your Palestinians propaganda and listen to Rocco, someone who has extensive knowledge on the I/P conflict and stop trying to fight the losing battle with him .


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."



And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.

Then you said:



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.



What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
Click to expand...


Your claim that the sovereign state of Palestine was set by the Treaty of Lausanne

SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS: THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE WAS WHAT CREATED THE STATE 'PALESTINE' FOR THE PALESTINIANS (no neccessarily in those words.


----------



## toastman

I several links about the Treaty of Lausanne. 

Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For Fucks sake, it was a peace treaty !


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that the sovereign state of Palestine was set by the Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS: THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE WAS WHAT CREATED THE STATE 'PALESTINE' FOR THE PALESTINIANS (no neccessarily in those words.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that.


----------



## toastman

Then what did you say ?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
Click to expand...


1912?  Are you a f*ing idiot?
Do you realize how many nations were dissolved and formed after WWs I & II?
Are you an absolute f*ing idiot?
1912?  That's like saying every nation the Roman Empire absorbed has to go back to an Empire that no longer exists!

This is the least Jew Hating reference I could find besides Wikipedia...
Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 | Palestine Mandate


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> I several links about the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For Fucks sake, it was a peace treaty !



Are you attempting to create a straw man argument?

*Fail!*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I several links about the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For Fucks sake, it was a peace treaty !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to create a straw man argument?
> 
> *Fail!*
Click to expand...


LOL

Thamks for acknowledging that the Treaty of Lausanne says NOTHING about creating a state at all, therefore contradicting you original claim.

*Fail!*


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I several links about the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For Fucks sake, it was a peace treaty !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to create a straw man argument?
> 
> *Fail!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Thamks for acknowledging that the Treaty of Lausanne says NOTHING about creating a state at all, therefore contradicting you original claim.
> 
> *Fail!*
Click to expand...


Where did I say that?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
Click to expand...





 The documents themselves, or more precisely the parts you miss out that don't support your POV and the fact that the source is biased towards there being a Palestinian nation before there was a Jewish one.

 Very disingenuous of you to copy and paste parts of sentences that taken as a whole would destroy your claims.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the sovereign state of Palestine was set by the Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS: THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE WAS WHAT CREATED THE STATE 'PALESTINE' FOR THE PALESTINIANS (no neccessarily in those words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
Click to expand...




* Here are your words were you say just that.*

 And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

*The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I several links about the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For Fucks sake, it was a peace treaty !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you attempting to create a straw man argument?
> 
> *Fail!*
Click to expand...




 NO just posting the truth and the reality, your source for your claim does not uphold your claim in the slightest. As in your claim that the treaty of Lausanne  sets the borders and nationality of the part of Palestine you claim is a nation. The truth is the treaty of Lausanne sets the borders for the ottoman district of Palestine that includes what is now Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, parts of Saudi Arabia and the unclaimed land of the west bank and gaza. Are you claiming that the Hostile arab terrorists hold title to that area of land that was detailed in the treaty of Lausanne ?


----------



## Andylusion

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thamks for acknowledging that the Treaty of Lausanne says NOTHING about creating a state at all, therefore contradicting you original claim.
> 
> *Fail!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that really doesn't matter.  Who is the ultimate authority over the land of Israel?   G-d is.   Not man.   Man can make up whatever documents, or treaties, and all the ink on paper he wants.
> 
> Ultimately:
> 
> Numbers 34:1-12
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> Boundaries of Canaan
> 
> 34 The Lord said to Moses, 2 &#8220;Command the Israelites and say to them: &#8216;When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance is to have these boundaries:
> 
> 3 &#8220;&#8216;Your southern side will include some of the Desert of Zin along the border of Edom. Your southern boundary will start in the east from the southern end of the Dead Sea, 4 cross south of Scorpion Pass, continue on to Zin and go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and over to Azmon, 5 where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> 6 &#8220;&#8216;Your western boundary will be the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This will be your boundary on the west.
> 
> 7 &#8220;&#8216;For your northern boundary, run a line from the Mediterranean Sea to Mount Hor 8 and from Mount Hor to Lebo Hamath. Then the boundary will go to Zedad, 9 continue to Ziphron and end at Hazar Enan. This will be your boundary on the north.
> 
> 10 &#8220;&#8216;For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11 The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Galilee.[a] 12 Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Dead Sea.
> 
> &#8220;&#8216;This will be your land, with its boundaries on every side.&#8217;&#8221;
> 
> *G-d made it clear that this land was for Israel.  That's who it belongs to.   I don't give a crap about all your man made ideals.*
> 
> G-d said this.   This is why no matter how much opposition the Israelis have had from around the entire world, they have endured.
> 
> And by the way.....   This is why the enemies of Israel, no matter how much land they do have, they only want what Israel has.   Not because they oppose "The Jews&#8482;"    It's because they oppose G-d himself.   They don't want what G-d said to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that red speck in the middle of all the Green?  That's Israel.    All that Green, is the Islamic lands, which hate the Jews.    The little red dot, is the tiny little nation of Israel where Jews can live.
> 
> There is absolutely no logical reason why Islamist can't enjoy the vast expansive lands they own, and only care about some tiny speck of a country called Israel.... except... they oppose G-d, and they HATE that G-d said that land was for the Jews.
> 
> That is all there is to it.   That's why they are willing to sell their kids as suicide bombers.
> 
> Remember, there have been Jews in the land of Israel (Palestine), for over 2,000 years.   The Islamists never had a problem with Jews being there, provided there was no country called "Israel".  Why?  Because they oppose G-d.  They oppose Numbers 34:1-12.
> 
> And the bottom line is, the enemies of G-d will lose.   They lost in 1948.  They lost in 1967.  They lost in 1973.  They lost in 1982.   And they *WILL* lose the next time too.
> 
> All of the world can join with the enemies of G-d, and they will lose with them.
> 
> And the truth is, if the USA, joins the enemies against Israel, we'll lose as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The documents themselves, or more precisely the parts you miss out that don't support your POV and the fact that the source is biased towards there being a Palestinian nation before there was a Jewish one.
> 
> Very disingenuous of you to copy and paste parts of sentences that taken as a whole would destroy your claims.
Click to expand...


What did I leave out that would have changed the points I made?

What makes you say the source was biased? They sourced all the material they quoted and where I checked those sources their quotes were accurate.


----------



## toastman

toastman said:


> Then what did you say ?



Well ???


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The documents themselves, or more precisely the parts you miss out that don't support your POV and the fact that the source is biased towards there being a Palestinian nation before there was a Jewish one.
> 
> Very disingenuous of you to copy and paste parts of sentences that taken as a whole would destroy your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I leave out that would have changed the points I made?
> 
> What makes you say the source was biased? They sourced all the material they quoted and where I checked those sources their quotes were accurate.
Click to expand...





 All the parts you deliberately missed out because they did not support your argument and POV.

 Just look at the sourcde and you see that it is from a muslim who is biased by this very fact. He is incapable of giving a balanced objective argument in favour of his belief, he might of sourced all his material but that does not change the fact that he then gave his own BIASED slant on the material. When we checked his main source it did not say what he claimed it said. in fact it did not even mention Palestine at all. So his source was accurate but your source wasn't.


----------



## Kondor3

The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.

The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.

Far too late now.

Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (_so-called legal and otherwise_) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (_and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative_) legal possibilities.

None of that old shit matters any longer.

Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.

The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.

The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.

And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.

Nature has de-selected them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the sovereign state of Palestine was set by the Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS: THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE WAS WHAT CREATED THE STATE 'PALESTINE' FOR THE PALESTINIANS (no neccessarily in those words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Here are your words were you say just that.*
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.*
Click to expand...


The allied powers decided to break up the Ottoman Empire into successor states. They defined the borders of these new states. The nationality of the people inside those borders and their citizenship was determined by customary international law.

This is what they said about nationality.



> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​





> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​



However, as long as these territories were still under Turkish rule none of this could legally take place. The Treaty of Lausanne took those territories out from under Turkish rule allowing this succession of territory to the successor states to become legal. The treaty, itself, did not create any of these successor states.



> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.



Link to quotes
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.
> 
> The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.
> 
> Far too late now.
> 
> Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (_so-called legal and otherwise_) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (_and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative_) legal possibilities.
> 
> None of that old shit matters any longer.
> 
> Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.
> 
> The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.
> 
> And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.
> 
> Nature has de-selected them.



Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...

This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.
> 
> The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.
> 
> Far too late now.
> 
> Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (_so-called legal and otherwise_) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (_and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative_) legal possibilities.
> 
> None of that old shit matters any longer.
> 
> Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.
> 
> The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.
> 
> And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.
> 
> Nature has de-selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...
> 
> This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the pro-Islam commercial.

There are between 1.8 and 2.2 billion Christians.

So what?

Despite all protestations to the contrary, most Muslims see the Palestinians as embarrassing and prolematic mad-dog distant cousins for whom the Ummah has already shed enough blood and spent enough treasure.

Why else would the Palestinians' own Muslim co-religionists wall them off into ghettos and blockade them?

More to the point, most of the Ummah lies far beyond the practical reach of whatever modest and squalid military and economic aid that they might otherwise provide.

Not to mention that many of those sympathetic nations that _are_ 'within practical reach' are in no shape to intervene anyway.

Egypt is in a state of near civil war and unable to intervene effectively for years to come (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

Syria is in a state of actual civil war and entirely unable to intervene for generations to come (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

Lebanon is a multi-generational victim of civil war and is a mere shadow of its former self; unable to intervene effectively (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

Libya is a recovering victim of civil war and will be unable to intervene effectively for another couple of decades at least (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

Iraq is a recovering victim of war and civil war, and is presently, once again, in a state of near civil war, and will be unable to intervene, effectively, for at least a generation; perhaps longer (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar and the UAE, put together, don't amount to a fart in a hurricane, and may be laughably written off as a military threat (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

Afghanistan lies prostrate from decades of war and civil war and is far too remote and self-centered to do any more than to pay lip service to the idea of military intervention against Israel; they've never been a player, and never will be; and have zero credibility with respect to such intervention.

Iran is a joke, militarily, on the conventional front, and poses next to zero threat against Israel, militarily, other than to send some weapons to Hezbollah and to train Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon; the only practical way for Iran to intervene is if they acquire nukes and then use them against Israel; which would result in massive Iranian loss of life and infrastructure. The Palestinians are not worth that price-tag to the Iranians.

Pakistan is far too busy with their own troublesome northwestern provinces and their Indian neighbor to intervene effectively against Israel, and any use of nuclear weapons against Israel would spell disaster for the Pakistanis (casualties and infrastructure). They're even further from any potential combat theatre than the Iranians. Ain't gonna happen - even if an Iranian-style theocracy emerged in that shit-hole. The Palestinians are not worth that price-tag to the Pakistanis.

Indonesia has enough trouble keeping its own socks pulled up and might as well be on the other side of the moon, when it comes to potential military intervention against Israel.

Turkey is more European than Asian and a member of NATO and on reasonably friendly terms with Israel and remains largely secular with a strong tradition of separation of church and state, enforced by their army, and will not sacrifice their relationship with The West for a handful of mad-dogs in Rump Palestine.

Jordan is the only Muslim-Arab power with a history of war-making against Israel which is presently unburdened by civil war or its after-effects, and they're far too small to engage the Israelis on their own, even if they weren't being paid-off to keep their mouths shut and to behave themselves (not that they've ever been successful at intervening against Israel, anyway).

The Ummah - or, at least, that portion of it within practicable military striking distance of Israel - has been unable to destroy Israel or to advance the cause of their co-religionists in Rump Palestine after several tries - when speaking in terms of 'numbers' and conventional warfare.

There is no Arab (or Muslim) cavalry coming over the hill - metaphorically speaking - to rescue the mad-dog Palestinian albatross that has been hanging around their necks.

The Muslims have spent far too much blood and treasure trying, off and on over the past 66 years, in support of their mad-dog distant cousins, and failing miserably. They've hit their 'wall' - they're done - donor exhaustion - all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Even a hundred years from now, and even if each and every player in the region has nukes, Israel will still be there. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will have long-since been squeezed off their last few remaining and disjointed slivers of land by then, and their refugee populations assimilated by Jordan and Lebanon, and largely forgotten.

Let us know when this threat from 'The Ummah' materializes, will ya?

Yer scarin' folks...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Here are your words were you say just that.*
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The allied powers decided to break up the Ottoman Empire into successor states. They defined the borders of these new states. The nationality of the people inside those borders and their citizenship was determined by customary international law.
> 
> This is what they said about nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, as long as these territories were still under Turkish rule none of this could legally take place. The Treaty of Lausanne took those territories out from under Turkish rule allowing this succession of territory to the successor states to become legal. The treaty, itself, did not create any of these successor states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to quotes
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...




 SO what it gave the original area of Palestine a national identity, and then took it away and replaced it with another national identity. This is what you refuse to see as it destroys your argument.  Here is a map of the mandated land all known as Palestine






Just the pink and the blue is all we are interested in as that was pre 1925 Palestine, the Palestine you keep referring to when you use the treaty of Lausanne and the international borders. Along come's Britain and France and they start to carve up the land and give it to arab princes for their help in defeating Turkey. So after the treaty you so rely on Palestine was carved up and made into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and parts handed to Saudi Arabia. This left the original area that was destined for the Jewish homeland. Once you understand that the vast majority of the Land had been given to arab muslims, with one small part for arab Christians then you see were the fallacies and fantasies are. Yes Palestinian nationality was founded and almost immediately removed by the creation of new nations in Palestine. The little part that was left had no treaty to give it a nationality, no treaty to give it borders, it had nothing until the UN came up with 181 and the GREEDY muslims wanted it all.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Here are your words were you say just that.*
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The allied powers decided to break up the Ottoman Empire into successor states. They defined the borders of these new states. The nationality of the people inside those borders and their citizenship was determined by customary international law.
> 
> This is what they said about nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, as long as these territories were still under Turkish rule none of this could legally take place. The Treaty of Lausanne took those territories out from under Turkish rule allowing this succession of territory to the successor states to become legal. The treaty, itself, did not create any of these successor states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to quotes
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...





 A biased and self opiniated author who can not be relied on to give a straight answer. He is a Palestinian for gods sake so of course he will manipulate the words to suit his islamonazi POV.

 Now try it from an unbiased POV.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.
> 
> The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.
> 
> Far too late now.
> 
> Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (_so-called legal and otherwise_) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (_and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative_) legal possibilities.
> 
> None of that old shit matters any longer.
> 
> Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.
> 
> The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.
> 
> And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.
> 
> Nature has de-selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...
> 
> This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.
Click to expand...





 And still they are useless against the state of Israel, shows that their god is not with them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Here are your words were you say just that.*
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> *The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The allied powers decided to break up the Ottoman Empire into successor states. They defined the borders of these new states. The nationality of the people inside those borders and their citizenship was determined by customary international law.
> 
> This is what they said about nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, as long as these territories were still under Turkish rule none of this could legally take place. The Treaty of Lausanne took those territories out from under Turkish rule allowing this succession of territory to the successor states to become legal. The treaty, itself, did not create any of these successor states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the Palestinian people as distinct from all other peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to quotes
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO what it gave the original area of Palestine a national identity, and then took it away and replaced it with another national identity. This is what you refuse to see as it destroys your argument.  Here is a map of the mandated land all known as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just the pink and the blue is all we are interested in as that was pre 1925 Palestine, the Palestine you keep referring to when you use the treaty of Lausanne and the international borders. *Along come's Britain and France and they start to carve up the land and give it to arab princes for their help in defeating Turkey. So after the treaty you so rely on Palestine was carved up and made into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and parts handed to Saudi Arabia. This left the original area that was destined for the Jewish homeland. Once you understand that the vast majority of the Land had been given to arab muslims, with one small part for arab Christians then you see were the fallacies and fantasies are. Yes Palestinian nationality was founded and almost immediately removed by the creation of new nations in Palestine. The little part that was left had no treaty to give it a nationality, no treaty to give it borders, it had nothing until the UN came up with 181 and the GREEDY muslims wanted it all.
Click to expand...


Not true. You have your timeline all mixed up.



> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestines territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypts autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attempt to imply that "Palestine" was set free by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that a new nation was established with a nationality and citizenship known as "Palestinians." Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.

You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II  - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred."  The territory of Palestine _(not mentioned specifically in the treaty)_ was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state."  Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.

Your pro-Palestinian source, _Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem,_ research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts.  The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states.  What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.

When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?


There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.

There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.

There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories.  Nothing in the Treaty alters that.


You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points."  You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:



			
				Article 30 said:
			
		

> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey *will become* _ipsofacto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred*.



What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force.  The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong.  The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne.  They all match.  The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty.  The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.

There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine.  It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error.  You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.
> 
> You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II  - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred."  The territory of Palestine _(not mentioned specifically in the treaty)_ was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state."  Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.
> 
> Your pro-Palestinian source, _Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem,_ research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts.  The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states.  What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.
> 
> When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
> I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
> I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
> I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
> The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories.  Nothing in the Treaty alters that.
> 
> 
> You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points."  You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey *will become* _ipsofacto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force.  The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong.  The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne.  They all match.  The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty.  The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine.  It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error.  You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> *There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.*



I never said there was.

Why the red herring?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Hummm,,,  Not a "Red Herring."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.
> 
> Why the red herring?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty.  I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Hummm,,,  Not a "Red Herring."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.
> 
> Why the red herring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty.  I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


*Not!*

You haven't been reading my posts.


----------



## freedombecki

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.
> 
> You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory of Palestine _(not mentioned specifically in the treaty)_ was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state." Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.
> 
> Your pro-Palestinian source, _Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem,_ research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts. The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states. What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.
> 
> When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
> I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
> I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
> I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
> The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories. Nothing in the Treaty alters that.
> 
> 
> You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points." You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey *will become* _ipsofacto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force. The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong. The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne. They all match. The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty. The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine. It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error. You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, Rocco, but the reason things were specifically avoided may have been because of the history of killing in the region based strictly on religious and ethnic backgrounds which pushed Jewish natives in the region to Europe, where it was easier to kill Jewish people by proxy by planting bad stories about them and blaming them for things they did not do to the German people, at least not on a large scale. Additionally, one of their own led the fight to kill all the Jews in Europe and was given an enthusiastic welcome when he offered hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslims to fight for Hitler's causes in exchange for the promise that after all the Jews in Europe were assassinated, that Hitler would send his forces to the Middle East to go after all Jews. 

 The committee that reinstated the rights of Jews in their own historic land of Israel was to hopefully stop the killing of a War that took one hundred million lives in conflicts involving heavy metal and poisonings. The UN was established to ensure this genocide of Jews would never crop up in the world again.

 To keep bringing hate back into the picture with homicide bombings and surreptitious murders of Jews and Americans, who actually were instrumental in getting the people of the Middle East back on their feet with extracting fossil fuels, recalls the misinformation that preceded Germany's Krystalnacht which propelled World War II and showed Hitler he could take power by reinforcing the hatred of people taught from the cradle to hate people of other religious backgrounds.

 It's a sad day to open a news page and read up on the dreadful things being done in a torn middle east and the constant lying that goes around when Jews defend their right to exist.

 It's a sad day the mullahs and muftis have the power to spin one false witness against people they wish to get rid of and have so many believers around the globe, using prideful religion as a reason to kill Jewish people.

 Genocidal politics abolish peaceful negotiations like nothing else. How many wars to we have to fight to stop it?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Then we must be in agreement.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Hummm,,,  Not a "Red Herring."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.
> 
> Why the red herring?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty.  I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not!*
> 
> You haven't been reading my posts.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:

The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.

The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).

The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Then we must be in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Hummm,,,  Not a "Red Herring."
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty.  I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not!*
> 
> You haven't been reading my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
> 
> The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.



*Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.

All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.

The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, all of this discussion about the Treaty of Laussane began when I asked you when exactly did Palestine become a country.
The date you gave was the same date of the treaty. IS this correct ?


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.
> 
> The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.
> 
> Far too late now.
> 
> Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (_so-called legal and otherwise_) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (_and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative_) legal possibilities.
> 
> None of that old shit matters any longer.
> 
> Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.
> 
> The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.
> 
> And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.
> 
> Nature has de-selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...
> 
> This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.
Click to expand...


Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.


----------



## toastman

Indeependent said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time to raise such arguments in favor of Muslim-Arab Palestinian sovereignty over the whole of Old Palestine would have been May 14, 1948.
> 
> The first entry on a very long list of opportunities missed by the Palestinians since that date.
> 
> Far too late now.
> 
> Victories on the battlefield, political developments, land transfers (_so-called legal and otherwise_) and 66 years of custom and usage have set aside any such old (_and, by now, entirely obsolete and inoperative_) legal possibilities.
> 
> None of that old shit matters any longer.
> 
> Just as it didn't matter at the time when it might actually have done some good - the 1947-1949 timeframe.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine had their shit together.
> 
> The Muslims of Old Palestine didn't have a frigging clue.
> 
> And they - and their descendants - are paying the price for that ignorance and incompetency.
> 
> Nature has de-selected them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...
> 
> This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.
Click to expand...


What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Then we must be in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not!*
> 
> You haven't been reading my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
> 
> The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
Click to expand...


This is philosophical.  It has nothing to do with reality.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allied powers decided to break up the Ottoman Empire into successor states. They defined the borders of these new states. The nationality of the people inside those borders and their citizenship was determined by customary international law.
> 
> This is what they said about nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, as long as these territories were still under Turkish rule none of this could legally take place. The Treaty of Lausanne took those territories out from under Turkish rule allowing this succession of territory to the successor states to become legal. The treaty, itself, did not create any of these successor states.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to quotes
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO what it gave the original area of Palestine a national identity, and then took it away and replaced it with another national identity. This is what you refuse to see as it destroys your argument.  Here is a map of the mandated land all known as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just the pink and the blue is all we are interested in as that was pre 1925 Palestine, the Palestine you keep referring to when you use the treaty of Lausanne and the international borders. *Along come's Britain and France and they start to carve up the land and give it to arab princes for their help in defeating Turkey. So after the treaty you so rely on Palestine was carved up and made into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and parts handed to Saudi Arabia. This left the original area that was destined for the Jewish homeland. Once you understand that the vast majority of the Land had been given to arab muslims, with one small part for arab Christians then you see were the fallacies and fantasies are. Yes Palestinian nationality was founded and almost immediately removed by the creation of new nations in Palestine. The little part that was left had no treaty to give it a nationality, no treaty to give it borders, it had nothing until the UN came up with 181 and the GREEDY muslims wanted it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. You have your timeline all mixed up.
> 
> *Nope it is spot on as the treaty of Lausanne dealt with the area known as Palestine as it was being carved up for breakfast. It did not deal with the tiny little part that is now disputed land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nationality constitutes a legal bond that connects individuals with a specific territory, making them citizens of that territory. It is therefore imperative to examine the boundaries of Palestine in order to define the piece of land on which Palestinian nationality was established.
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestines territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> 
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> 
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypts autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





read your own post and see were you constantly contradict yourself, you cant GIVE your borders to a non existent country.

 And your source is the same one that I have shown is very biased, even racially motivated and inciting religious intolerance and violence.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
> 
> The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
> 
> The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
> 
> I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You quoted nothing form the Treaty that cites the borders of Palestine or the independent nationality of the Palestinians.
> 
> You cite a a research paper that reinterprets Part - Article 30 - SECTION II  - NATIONALITY (Lausanne Treaty) which says "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred."  The territory of Palestine _(not mentioned specifically in the treaty)_ was transferred to Allied control through the League of Nations Mandate System; NOT another "state."  Under the Mandate of Palestine, the UK administered the immigration and naturalization laws.
> 
> Your pro-Palestinian source, _Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem,_ research paper is attempting to manipulate the history and application of the facts.  The Treaty is worded that way because it not only deals with three different Mandatories (UK, FR, RU), but several other countries and territories that were incorporated to other states.  What was (at that time) considered the Mandate of Palestine had Orders in Council and the Mandate directive that specifically addressed the nationality issues.
> 
> When you ask, "What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?" What are you asking?
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestine's international borders were defined."
> I challenge you to find one word concerning Palestine in the Treaty.
> I challenge you to find one word from the Border Commission concerning Palestine.
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates that "Palestinians were a distinct nationality."
> I challenge you to point out the State to which the Territory under Mandate is transferred to make Article 30 applicable.
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that corroborates "Palestinians were citizens of Palestine."
> The indigenous population assumed the citizenship as directed by the criteria laid down by the respective mandatories.  Nothing in the Treaty alters that.
> 
> 
> You said: "I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points."  You quoted a research paper that tries to re-interpret Article 30 which states:
> 
> 
> 
> What became know as Palestine, was placed in Mandate, and had already been in Mandate since 1920, and remained so well after the Treaty was signed and went into force.  The interpretation that Palestinian Citizenship was conferred by treaty is 100% wrong.  The same Allied Powers that established the League of Nations that wrote the Mandate and controlled the territory they named as Palestine, ALSO wrote the Treaty of Lausanne.  They all match.  The origins and Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine stem from the original authorities long before the Treaty.  The Genesis of Citizenship in Israel Israel stem from its Declaration of Independence long after the Treaty.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the Treaty, it is just fine.  It is your interpretation of the Treaty I fine in error.  You subscribe things to the Treaty that just are not there; in some desperate attempt to substantiate a "state" that never was until 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there was.
> 
> Why the red herring?
Click to expand...





 Yet you are using that very statement to infer that there is. You are using flawed evidence to infer that the treaty of Lausanne is saying that the land under dispute was the only place known as Palestine before WW1. That the British and French mandates were not applicable to that disputed land because some islamonazi Palestinian says that it was a nation. He produces no concrete evidence or any mention of that disputed land declaring itself a nation but still insists that even though it is not mentioned by name it was allocated a nationality and an identity. I could do the same thing with the same evidence and show that the land is all Israel, and you would not be able to contradict my findings without first contradicting your source.

 Your claim is about as water tight as a colander, and you are well aware of this fact. Now you are just trying to save face, and failing miserably.


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Hummm,,,  Not a "Red Herring."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Treaty that says anything about Palestine, or the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.
> 
> Why the red herring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty.  I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




* here are his own words were he clearly says that the treaty of Lausanne states that Palestine became a nation with defined borders*

 And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Hummm,,,  Not a "Red Herring."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.
> 
> Why the red herring?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are attempting to make a case; attributing qualities and characteristics that you claim come from the Treaty.  I was merely making it plain, that in no way does the treaty singularly or collectively address either the people or the territory in any specific manner.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not!*
> 
> You haven't been reading my posts.
Click to expand...





* From your posts*
 And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.

The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.

I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points


* So what were you saying again ?*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Then we must be in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not!*
> 
> You haven't been reading my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
> 
> The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
Click to expand...





 So you agree that the disputed land has no international borders, no national identity and no nationality as the mandated powers did not give them any of these things.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it iwas.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Then we must be in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not!*
> 
> You haven't been reading my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
> 
> The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Again, you are wrong.  Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine"  _(Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)_



			
				This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council



The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.

What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated."  They are one and the same thing.

OR, to correct your statement:


When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

freedombecki, _et al,_

I had to give this some thought.  Sorry for the tardiness.



freedombecki said:


> I could be wrong, Rocco, but the reason things were specifically avoided may have been because of the history of killing in the region based strictly on religious and ethnic backgrounds which pushed Jewish natives in the region to Europe, where it was easier to kill Jewish people by proxy by planting bad stories about them and blaming them for things they did not do to the German people, at least not on a large scale. Additionally, one of their own led the fight to kill all the Jews in Europe and was given an enthusiastic welcome when he offered hundreds of thousands of his fellow muslims to fight for Hitler's causes in exchange for the promise that after all the Jews in Europe were assassinated, that Hitler would send his forces to the Middle East to go after all Jews.


*(COMMENT)*

I honestly do not know if this is a latent reason, or not.  Surely, there were multiple reasons.  And surely, some of the oppressors incorporated reasoning of their own, as personalized justification.



freedombecki said:


> The committee that reinstated the rights of Jews in their own historic land of Israel was to hopefully stop the killing of a War that took one hundred million lives in conflicts involving heavy metal and poisonings. The UN was established to ensure this genocide of Jews would never crop up in the world again.


*(COMMENT)*

Clearly, the protection of the culture was a reason both before WWI and after WWII.



freedombecki said:


> To keep bringing hate back into the picture with homicide bombings and surreptitious murders of Jews and Americans, who actually were instrumental in getting the people of the Middle East back on their feet with extracting fossil fuels, recalls the misinformation that preceded Germany's Krystalnacht which propelled World War II and showed Hitler he could take power by reinforcing the hatred of people taught from the cradle to hate people of other religious backgrounds.
> 
> It's a sad day to open a news page and read up on the dreadful things being done in a torn middle east and the constant lying that goes around when Jews defend their right to exist.
> 
> It's a sad day the mullahs and muftis have the power to spin one false witness against people they wish to get rid of and have so many believers around the globe, using prideful religion as a reason to kill Jewish people.
> 
> Genocidal politics abolish peaceful negotiations like nothing else. How many wars to we have to fight to stop it?


*(COMMENT)*

Important food for thought.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it iwas.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Then we must be in agreement.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
> 
> The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine"  _(Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.
> 
> What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated."  They are one and the same thing.
> 
> OR, to correct your statement:
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


*When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.*

And this is EXACTLY what Tinmore needs to understand. The entire Basis of his claims was that Palestine was STILL THERE after the Mandate left.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...1.4 billion Muslims 800 million or so surrounding her and 5 million Israelis. Quite the contrary Nature has blessed with 1/4 of humanity and growing faster than any other Religion...
> 
> This conflict has just begun according the nature of time...Israel needs peace more than the Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL
Click to expand...


Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of  bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...

The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.

The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the  ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.

Group dynamics are universal and predictable.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy_..."


Those who chose to stay behind and to collaborate and become citizens were rewarded.

Those who chose to leave, and to fight, cannot (and will not) be trusted to behave in the same way.

Too much at stake to take such a chance.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it iwas.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Then we must be in agreement.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Other than what was established by the powers invested in the Mandatory and the Allied Powers:
> 
> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers; not the Treaty and not by virtue of the the inhabitants.
> 
> The Palestinians were not a distinct nationality; being separate in any fashion from other Arab within the central Levant, those in the surrounding administrative districts (later known as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia).
> 
> The Palestinians were NOT citizens of Palestine.  They were Arabs that became known as Palestinians, after the Allied Powers established the Mandate of Palestine over a territory they defined; and assumed responsibilities for legislative action, immigration, citizenship and naturalization.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine"  _(Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.
> 
> What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated."  They are one and the same thing.
> 
> OR, to correct your statement:
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Do you have a link that says that?


----------



## Indeependent

The link is called Israel.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Those who chose to stay behind and to collaborate and become citizens were rewarded.
> 
> Those who chose to leave, and to fight, cannot (and will not) be trusted to behave in the same way.
> 
> Too much at stake to take such a chance.
Click to expand...


It's Israel's _ONLY _chance!


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Sometimes you have to apply your comprehensive skills.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it was.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine"  _(Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.
> 
> What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated."  They are one and the same thing.
> 
> OR, to correct your statement:
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The link is right here.  



			
				This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council



We are using the commutative property of addition in logic.

3+4=4+3
Territory of Mandate for Palestine = Palestine
Palestine = Territory of Mandate for Palestine
If the Territory of Mandate for Palestine = 0 (Zero)
Then Palestine = 0 (Zero)
No Territory of Mandate for Palestine 
Then No Palestine




There is more to the discussion than just using the copy'n'paste function and someone else's ideas to make your point.  Sometimes, you have to be able to use your personal skill in critical thinking and logic.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Tinmkore, you need to provide links for your claims before you ask people for links


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Those who chose to stay behind and to collaborate and become citizens were rewarded.
> 
> Those who chose to leave, and to fight, cannot (and will not) be trusted to behave in the same way.
> 
> Too much at stake to take such a chance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Israel's _ONLY _chance!
Click to expand...

Yes. So you've said. Others see it quite differently.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of  bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...
> 
> The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.
> 
> The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the  ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.
> 
> Group dynamics are universal and predictable.
Click to expand...



They wouldn't run out of bullets. If hundreds of millions of Arabs gathered around Israels borders trying to take over the country, Israel wouldn't have to use a single bullet. All that's needed ins a couple of nukes to eliminate the threat, and any reserve Arabs would not be able to approach the border like their roasted friends because of a nuclear fallout.

Of course, such a situation would never occur. 

Now, concerning your prediction that Israel will 'tire out' because of all the future skirmishes and what not....I don't buy that. Anyone who attacks Israel in even the slightest way gets hit so hard, they think twice before attacking Israel again.
Also, you need to understand just how patriotic Israels citizens and soldiers are. 

Now you actually believe that Israel going back to the '67 borders and allowing right of return is going to make the Arabs accept her existence???? That's a load of crap ! 
As a matter of fact, doing so will make Israel wayyyy harder to defend herself AND give Israel serious demographic issues. 

Pbel, there are plenty of Muslim in the ME who truly believe it is Allah's will for them to destroy Israel. And they are ready to give up their life to do so. 

Israel will *NEVER* return to the '67 borders
Israel will *NEVER* allow right of return
Israel will *NEVER* divide Jerusalem 

........and rightfully so


----------



## GISMYS

Imho. Israel will agree to divide jerusalem for "peace" (a false peace) bible prophecy says so!


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of  bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...
> 
> The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.
> 
> The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the  ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.
> 
> Group dynamics are universal and predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't run out of bullets. If hundreds of millions of Arabs gathered around Israels borders trying to take over the country, Israel wouldn't have to use a single bullet. All that's needed ins a couple of nukes to eliminate the threat, and any reserve Arabs would not be able to approach the border like their roasted friends because of a nuclear fallout.
> 
> Of course, such a situation would never occur.
> 
> Now, concerning your prediction that Israel will 'tire out' because of all the future skirmishes and what not....I don't buy that. Anyone who attacks Israel in even the slightest way gets hit so hard, they think twice before attacking Israel again.
> Also, you need to understand just how patriotic Israels citizens and soldiers are.
> 
> Now you actually believe that Israel going back to the '67 borders and allowing right of return is going to make the Arabs accept her existence???? That's a load of crap !
> As a matter of fact, doing so will make Israel wayyyy harder to defend herself AND give Israel serious demographic issues.
> 
> Pbel, there are plenty of Muslim in the ME who truly believe it is Allah's will for them to destroy Israel. And they are ready to give up their life to do so.
> 
> Israel will *NEVER* return to the '67 borders
> Israel will *NEVER* allow right of return
> Israel will *NEVER* divide Jerusalem
> 
> ........and rightfully so
Click to expand...


We're going to call you Dr. Toastlove...If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan will destroy her.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of  bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...
> 
> The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.
> 
> The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the  ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.
> 
> Group dynamics are universal and predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't run out of bullets. If hundreds of millions of Arabs gathered around Israels borders trying to take over the country, Israel wouldn't have to use a single bullet. All that's needed ins a couple of nukes to eliminate the threat, and any reserve Arabs would not be able to approach the border like their roasted friends because of a nuclear fallout.
> 
> Of course, such a situation would never occur.
> 
> Now, concerning your prediction that Israel will 'tire out' because of all the future skirmishes and what not....I don't buy that. Anyone who attacks Israel in even the slightest way gets hit so hard, they think twice before attacking Israel again.
> Also, you need to understand just how patriotic Israels citizens and soldiers are.
> 
> Now you actually believe that Israel going back to the '67 borders and allowing right of return is going to make the Arabs accept her existence???? That's a load of crap !
> As a matter of fact, doing so will make Israel wayyyy harder to defend herself AND give Israel serious demographic issues.
> 
> Pbel, there are plenty of Muslim in the ME who truly believe it is Allah's will for them to destroy Israel. And they are ready to give up their life to do so.
> 
> Israel will *NEVER* return to the '67 borders
> Israel will *NEVER* allow right of return
> Israel will *NEVER* divide Jerusalem
> 
> ........and rightfully so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're going to call you Dr. Toastlove...If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan will destroy her.
Click to expand...


LOL that was a hypothetical situation. It would never happen. But of course you would have no problem with millions of Arabs trying to destroy Israel.
Oh, and why would Pakistan commit suicide by nuking another country??


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't run out of bullets. If hundreds of millions of Arabs gathered around Israels borders trying to take over the country, Israel wouldn't have to use a single bullet. All that's needed ins a couple of nukes to eliminate the threat, and any reserve Arabs would not be able to approach the border like their roasted friends because of a nuclear fallout.
> 
> Of course, such a situation would never occur.
> 
> Now, concerning your prediction that Israel will 'tire out' because of all the future skirmishes and what not....I don't buy that. Anyone who attacks Israel in even the slightest way gets hit so hard, they think twice before attacking Israel again.
> Also, you need to understand just how patriotic Israels citizens and soldiers are.
> 
> Now you actually believe that Israel going back to the '67 borders and allowing right of return is going to make the Arabs accept her existence???? That's a load of crap !
> As a matter of fact, doing so will make Israel wayyyy harder to defend herself AND give Israel serious demographic issues.
> 
> Pbel, there are plenty of Muslim in the ME who truly believe it is Allah's will for them to destroy Israel. And they are ready to give up their life to do so.
> 
> Israel will *NEVER* return to the '67 borders
> Israel will *NEVER* allow right of return
> Israel will *NEVER* divide Jerusalem
> 
> ........and rightfully so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to call you Dr. Toastlove...If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan will destroy her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL that was a hypothetical situation. It would never happen. But of course you would have no problem with millions of Arabs trying to destroy Israel.
> Oh, and why would Pakistan commit suicide by nuking another country??
Click to expand...


Because the Saudis paid for the Pakistani nuke program and will act on their orders... the suicide would be Israel's considering all the  hundreds of thousands WMDs now currently in various Arab countries.

Israelis nuking the Arabs is insanity.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I MIGHT bowl.

But it is doubtful I will ever consistently pick up a 7 - 10 split.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to call you Dr. Toastlove...If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan will destroy her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was a hypothetical situation. It would never happen. But of course you would have no problem with millions of Arabs trying to destroy Israel.
> Oh, and why would Pakistan commit suicide by nuking another country??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Saudis paid for the Pakistani nuke program and will act on their orders... the suicide would be Israel's considering all the  hundreds of thousands WMDs now currently in various Arab countries.
> 
> Israelis nuking the Arabs is insanity.
Click to expand...


What Arab countries are you referring to that have WMD'S ? Link ?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was a hypothetical situation. It would never happen. But of course you would have no problem with millions of Arabs trying to destroy Israel.
> Oh, and why would Pakistan commit suicide by nuking another country??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Saudis paid for the Pakistani nuke program and will act on their orders... the suicide would be Israel's considering all the  hundreds of thousands WMDs now currently in various Arab countries.
> 
> Israelis nuking the Arabs is insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Arab countries are you referring to that have WMD'S ? Link ?
Click to expand...


Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).[14] In 1983 a report by the CIA stated that Israel, after "finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack... undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas... In late 1982 a probable CW nerve agent production facility and a storage facility were identified at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW agent production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."[15]

There are also speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR[16]) in Ness Ziona.[17]

190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[18]

In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[2] Former US deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years


----------



## toastman

Well you still didn't tell me what countries. Either way, if they wanted to use CW on Israel, they would have already.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Well you still didn't tell me what countries. Either way, if they wanted to use CW on Israel, they would have already.



Think of a War of Attrition like the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, it was bankrupting both countries...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes you have to apply your comprehensive skills.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it was.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine"  _(Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)_
> 
> 
> 
> The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.
> 
> What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated."  They are one and the same thing.
> 
> OR, to correct your statement:
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link is right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are using the commutative property of addition in logic.
> 
> 3+4=4+3
> Territory of Mandate for Palestine = Palestine
> Palestine = Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> If the Territory of Mandate for Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> Then Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> No Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> Then No Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the discussion than just using the copy'n'paste function and someone else's ideas to make your point.  Sometimes, you have to be able to use your personal skill in critical thinking and logic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Quote the passage that confirms what you say.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes you have to apply your comprehensive skills.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link is right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are using the commutative property of addition in logic.
> 
> 3+4=4+3
> Territory of Mandate for Palestine = Palestine
> Palestine = Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> If the Territory of Mandate for Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> Then Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> No Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> Then No Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the discussion than just using the copy'n'paste function and someone else's ideas to make your point.  Sometimes, you have to be able to use your personal skill in critical thinking and logic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
Click to expand...


Stop it Tinmore. Your claim has been proved wrong ! Give it up ! 
Why are you so scared to admit you were wrong ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes you have to apply your comprehensive skills.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link is right here.
> 
> 
> 
> We are using the commutative property of addition in logic.
> 
> 3+4=4+3
> Territory of Mandate for Palestine = Palestine
> Palestine = Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> If the Territory of Mandate for Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> Then Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> No Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> Then No Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the discussion than just using the copy'n'paste function and someone else's ideas to make your point.  Sometimes, you have to be able to use your personal skill in critical thinking and logic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop it Tinmore. Your claim has been proved wrong ! Give it up !
> Why are you so scared to admit you were wrong ?
Click to expand...


No it hasn't.

Where is that quote?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it Tinmore. Your claim has been proved wrong ! Give it up !
> Why are you so scared to admit you were wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> Where is that quote?
Click to expand...


Quote for which specific claim ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it Tinmore. Your claim has been proved wrong ! Give it up !
> Why are you so scared to admit you were wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> Where is that quote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote for which specific claim ?
Click to expand...


That the end of the mandate was the end of Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> Where is that quote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote for which specific claim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the end of the mandate was the end of Palestine.
Click to expand...


You're the one who keeps claiming that when the Mandate left, Palestine was still there.

I'm certain you do not have a link to prove it


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote for which specific claim ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the end of the mandate was the end of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps claiming that when the Mandate left, Palestine was still there.
> 
> I'm certain you do not have a link to prove it
Click to expand...


I do.

Rocco first.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the end of the mandate was the end of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps claiming that when the Mandate left, Palestine was still there.
> 
> I'm certain you do not have a link to prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Rocco first.
Click to expand...


If you really do, then post a link


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who keeps claiming that when the Mandate left, Palestine was still there.
> 
> I'm certain you do not have a link to prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Rocco first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you really do, then post a link
Click to expand...


I'm waiting for Rocco to prove his ridiculous claim.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

At the conclusion to the British Mandate, the Successor Government was the UN Palestine Commission.



			
				UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.​"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948





P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> Where is that quote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote for which specific claim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the end of the mandate was the end of Palestine.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You demand quotes that are worded such to support your agenda. Sometimes that is not possible.  Sometimes, a little gray matter activity is required.  

The entire purpose to the Successor Government _(the UNPC)_ was to implement GA/RES/181(II), ending Palestine as a Territory under Mandate, and the establishment of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.  This effectively ends "Palestine" as any kind of entity.



			
				UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
			
		

> *Establishment of the Commission*
> The resolution on the Future Government of Palestine, as adopted by the General Assembly at its one hundred twenty-eighth meeting on 29 November 1947, in paragraph 1, Section B, Part I, that A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representatives of each of five Member States. This Commission was charged with direct responsibility for implementing the measures recommended by the General Assembly.​
> 
> 
> 
> 1 October 1948: Ultimate date for the establishment of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. (Paragraph 3, Section A, Part I of the resolution.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 *has been implemented.*"
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
Click to expand...


The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) rejected the Partition Plan and the allocated apportionment for the Arab State.

Thus, after the Declaration of Independence (DoI) for Israel, Jerusalem as a fractured city, and the unapportioned territory for the Arab State remained.  Palestine was reduced and became the unallocated portion of the "former territory under the British Mandate."  The new Palestine (State of) did not come into being until its DoI November 1988.

I hope this answers your question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent

Nothing will satisfy Tin short of invalidating Israel altogether.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> At the conclusion to the British Mandate, the Successor Government was the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.​"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the end of the mandate was the end of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You demand quotes that are worded such to support your agenda. Sometimes that is not possible.  Sometimes, a little gray matter activity is required.
> 
> The entire purpose to the Successor Government _(the UNPC)_ was to implement GA/RES/181(II), ending Palestine as a Territory under Mandate, and the establishment of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.  This effectively ends "Palestine" as any kind of entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Establishment of the Commission*
> The resolution on the Future Government of Palestine, as adopted by the General Assembly at its one hundred twenty-eighth meeting on 29 November 1947, in paragraph 1, Section B, Part I, that A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representatives of each of five Member States. This Commission was charged with direct responsibility for implementing the measures recommended by the General Assembly.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 *has been implemented.*"
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) rejected the Partition Plan and the allocated apportionment for the Arab State.
> 
> Thus, after the Declaration of Independence (DoI) for Israel, Jerusalem as a fractured city, and the unapportioned territory for the Arab State remained.  Palestine was reduced and became the unallocated portion of the "former territory under the British Mandate."  The new Palestine (State of) did not come into being until its DoI November 1988.
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I thought that the right to self determination without external interference included the right to their own government not one imposed on them by foreigners.


----------



## Indeependent

Guess you were wrong.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is a different question all together.



P F Tinmore said:


> I thought that the right to self determination without external interference included the right to their own government not one imposed on them by foreigners.


*(COMMENT)*

What the "right to self determination" means has evolved over time.  Similarly, the use of the phrase "external interference" has been manipulated over time.

It has been a long standing practice for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), to conjure justification arguments using these two principles.

However, these two principles are just as applicable to the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence.  In fact, the actual application of these two principles are demonstrated by the events surrounding the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence; more so than by the Arabs.  In the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence, the HoAP attempted to interrupt by force, the Jewish "right to self determination" to do so; and the introduction of Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a different question all together.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the right to self determination without external interference included the right to their own government not one imposed on them by foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What the "right to self determination" means has evolved over time.  Similarly, the use of the phrase "external interference" has been manipulated over time.
> 
> It has been a long standing practice for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), to conjure justification arguments using these two principles.
> 
> However, these two principles are just as applicable to the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence.  In fact, the actual application of these two principles are demonstrated by the events surrounding the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence; more so than by the Arabs.  In the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence, the HoAP attempted to interrupt by force, the Jewish "right to self determination" to do so; and the introduction of Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


So you are saying that the Arabs were an external interference to foreigners creating their state in Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I guess I have to use less complicated language.  I'm always being misunderstood.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a different question all together.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the right to self determination without external interference included the right to their own government not one imposed on them by foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What the "right to self determination" means has evolved over time.  Similarly, the use of the phrase "external interference" has been manipulated over time.
> 
> It has been a long standing practice for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), to conjure justification arguments using these two principles.
> 
> However, these two principles are just as applicable to the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence.  In fact, the actual application of these two principles are demonstrated by the events surrounding the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence; more so than by the Arabs.  In the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence, the HoAP attempted to interrupt by force, the Jewish "right to self determination" to do so; and the introduction of Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that the Arabs were an external interference to foreigners creating their state in Palestine?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I think I said:  Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."

Military elements of 5 separate Arab nations crossed their borders and forceable entered the sovereign territory for the newly declared State of Israel.

*Note:*  This does not include the prepositioned, forward deployed elements of the Arab League.​
So, yes!  In the case of the Arab League, they were an "external interference" to the UNPC implementation of the Partition Plan; "by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I guess I have to use less complicated language.  I'm always being misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a different question all together.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What the "right to self determination" means has evolved over time.  Similarly, the use of the phrase "external interference" has been manipulated over time.
> 
> It has been a long standing practice for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), to conjure justification arguments using these two principles.
> 
> However, these two principles are just as applicable to the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence.  In fact, the actual application of these two principles are demonstrated by the events surrounding the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence; more so than by the Arabs.  In the Jewish Agency Declaration of Independence, the HoAP attempted to interrupt by force, the Jewish "right to self determination" to do so; and the introduction of Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the Arabs were an external interference to foreigners creating their state in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think I said:  Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."
> 
> Military elements of 5 separate Arab nations crossed their borders and forceable entered the sovereign territory for the newly declared State of Israel.
> 
> *Note:*  This does not include the prepositioned, forward deployed elements of the Arab League.​
> So, yes!  In the case of the Arab League, they were an "external interference" to the UNPC implementation of the Partition Plan; "by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading Deuteronomy 7:7 and then get back to us on who needs to worry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What doe Pbel think is going to happen?? That hundreds of millions of Arabs are going to gather at Israels borders and try to take over Israel?? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of  bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...
> 
> *So why hasn't Israel been destroyed in the last 65 years. 1948 they had rusty old guns and took on the combined arab armies and kicked them back into the 7c. Twice after that the arab armies tried to invade and were destroyed by the Israeli's. That is why you are talking out of your arse about the conflict, Israel holds the upper hand and could destroy Palestine in one fell swoop*
> 
> The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.
> 
> *And still the problems go on and the Palestinians lose more and more people because they love war more than they love their children*
> 
> The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the  ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.
> 
> *BULLSHIT the Jews were a downtrodden race from 632 C.E. till 1948 when they took control of their own lives. They were the slaves of the muslims and were beaten on a whim, their women raped repeatedly. The muslims do not want a nation of Jews with self determination anywhere in the world as it reminds them of their religious commands  to kill the Jews. *
> 
> Group dynamics are universal and predictable.
Click to expand...


*More so when the group is force fed violence and bloodshed for 1400 years because the Jews refused to lay down and worship their prophet.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Palestine was whatever the Allied Powers says it iwas.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!* That is what I have been saying all along.
> 
> All of the successor states were under mandate. The mandate was *temporarily assigned to Palestine* to render administrative assistance and advice until it could stand alone. It did not, could not alter borders or nationality.
> 
> The mandate and Palestine were separate entities. When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Understand, one more time, what it means when you say: "Palestine"  _(Back then it was not a country or a nationality beyond anything the Allied Powers said.)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word Palestine means the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies.
> 
> What happens when the mandate is terminate, "Palestine is terminated."  They are one and the same thing.
> 
> OR, to correct your statement:
> 
> 
> When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was no longer there inside its international borders.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
Click to expand...




 More to the point do you have a link that says it didn't ?

 Simple answer if there are no links either way then the negative will always win, in this case when the mandate ended so did your alleged nation of Palestine as it changed hands again


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Those who chose to stay behind and to collaborate and become citizens were rewarded.
> 
> Those who chose to leave, and to fight, cannot (and will not) be trusted to behave in the same way.
> 
> Too much at stake to take such a chance.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's Israel's _ONLY _chance!
Click to expand...





You lot have been saying that since 1948, guess you are losing all your money betting on the losers. Israel does not have to do anything but keep on defending its citizens and the Palestinians will wipe themselves out


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, If that happened, Israel would run out of  bullets and lose...No, wars of attrition are a slow process where Demographics and resistance and little skirmishes wear out the defenders of their tiny fortress...The constant danger of attack is very expensive in money and the cost of blood makes people leave the danger...
> 
> The Superpowers of the past have all left not because they wanted to, but for the cost of constant resistance.
> 
> The ONLY thing that can stop this grinding process is acceptance...Jews and Muslims have shared the same space for thousands of years. Peace for two or 3 generations and positive trade with the  ME will gain the acceptance Israel needs...Look at the Arabs within Israel's present borders...All relatively happy...A little prosperity goes a long way.
> 
> Group dynamics are universal and predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't run out of bullets. If hundreds of millions of Arabs gathered around Israels borders trying to take over the country, Israel wouldn't have to use a single bullet. All that's needed ins a couple of nukes to eliminate the threat, and any reserve Arabs would not be able to approach the border like their roasted friends because of a nuclear fallout.
> 
> Of course, such a situation would never occur.
> 
> Now, concerning your prediction that Israel will 'tire out' because of all the future skirmishes and what not....I don't buy that. Anyone who attacks Israel in even the slightest way gets hit so hard, they think twice before attacking Israel again.
> Also, you need to understand just how patriotic Israels citizens and soldiers are.
> 
> Now you actually believe that Israel going back to the '67 borders and allowing right of return is going to make the Arabs accept her existence???? That's a load of crap !
> As a matter of fact, doing so will make Israel wayyyy harder to defend herself AND give Israel serious demographic issues.
> 
> Pbel, there are plenty of Muslim in the ME who truly believe it is Allah's will for them to destroy Israel. And they are ready to give up their life to do so.
> 
> Israel will *NEVER* return to the '67 borders
> Israel will *NEVER* allow right of return
> Israel will *NEVER* divide Jerusalem
> 
> ........and rightfully so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're going to call you Dr. Toastlove...If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan will destroy her.
Click to expand...


 Then India destroys Pakistan, and also targets the other Islamic nations in the area. Before you know it the USA has been nuked by Russia and China. And Israel is still there


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to call you Dr. Toastlove...If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan will destroy her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was a hypothetical situation. It would never happen. But of course you would have no problem with millions of Arabs trying to destroy Israel.
> Oh, and why would Pakistan commit suicide by nuking another country??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Saudis paid for the Pakistani nuke program and will act on their orders... the suicide would be Israel's considering all the  hundreds of thousands WMDs now currently in various Arab countries.
> 
> Israelis nuking the Arabs is insanity.
Click to expand...




 Just as Pakistan throwing all that aid away is also insanity, they would never use their nukes on Israel as India would wipe them out. The Pakistani's would have to fire every single one of their nukes to be sure of hitting the target, killing many in the surrounding nations in the process. So for every Jew killed at least a 1,000 muslims would also perish, then every Pakistani would also perish when India fired its nukes at them


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Saudis paid for the Pakistani nuke program and will act on their orders... the suicide would be Israel's considering all the  hundreds of thousands WMDs now currently in various Arab countries.
> 
> Israelis nuking the Arabs is insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Arab countries are you referring to that have WMD'S ? Link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Israel has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).[14] In 1983 a report by the CIA stated that Israel, after "finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack... undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas... In late 1982 a probable CW nerve agent production facility and a storage facility were identified at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW agent production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."[15]
> 
> There are also speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR[16]) in Ness Ziona.[17]
> 
> 190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[18]
> 
> In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[2] Former US deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years
Click to expand...




* Now answer the question *
 What Arab countries are you referring to that have WMD'S ? Link


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you still didn't tell me what countries. Either way, if they wanted to use CW on Israel, they would have already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of a War of Attrition like the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, it was bankrupting both countries...
Click to expand...




 Isreali weapons are cheap as they have the raw materials to hand. It is the Hostiles that have to import them and the ammunition. All they have otherwise are qassams and IED's, and the IED's are worse than useless if they cant get close enough to use them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes you have to apply your comprehensive skills.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link is right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*
> 
> *SOURCE:*  The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are using the commutative property of addition in logic.
> 
> 3+4=4+3
> Territory of Mandate for Palestine = Palestine
> Palestine = Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> If the Territory of Mandate for Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> Then Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> No Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> Then No Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the discussion than just using the copy'n'paste function and someone else's ideas to make your point.  Sometimes, you have to be able to use your personal skill in critical thinking and logic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
Click to expand...




 THIS ONE

 The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it Tinmore. Your claim has been proved wrong ! Give it up !
> Why are you so scared to admit you were wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> Where is that quote?
Click to expand...




 Your whole argument was destroyed when it was shown that your source was biased and racially motivated  against the Jews. He twisted his sources till they met with his racist and biased POV, and you blindly accepted the racism and bias as fact.

Here is the quote you want

* The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> At the conclusion to the British Mandate, the Successor Government was the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.​"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You demand quotes that are worded such to support your agenda. Sometimes that is not possible.  Sometimes, a little gray matter activity is required.
> 
> The entire purpose to the Successor Government _(the UNPC)_ was to implement GA/RES/181(II), ending Palestine as a Territory under Mandate, and the establishment of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.  This effectively ends "Palestine" as any kind of entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION - FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Establishment of the Commission*
> The resolution on the Future Government of Palestine, as adopted by the General Assembly at its one hundred twenty-eighth meeting on 29 November 1947, in paragraph 1, Section B, Part I, that A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representatives of each of five Member States. This Commission was charged with direct responsibility for implementing the measures recommended by the General Assembly.​
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) rejected the Partition Plan and the allocated apportionment for the Arab State.
> 
> Thus, after the Declaration of Independence (DoI) for Israel, Jerusalem as a fractured city, and the unapportioned territory for the Arab State remained.  Palestine was reduced and became the unallocated portion of the "former territory under the British Mandate."  The new Palestine (State of) did not come into being until its DoI November 1988.
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that the right to self determination without external interference included the right to their own government not one imposed on them by foreigners.
Click to expand...




 Which they have, it is called the P.A. which was an interim governing body until they had made peace and settled into their new nation. The only government forced on them by foreign powers was the arab one that started to whole problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometimes you have to apply your comprehensive skills.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The link is right here.
> 
> 
> 
> We are using the commutative property of addition in logic.
> 
> 3+4=4+3
> Territory of Mandate for Palestine = Palestine
> Palestine = Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> If the Territory of Mandate for Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> Then Palestine = 0 (Zero)
> No Territory of Mandate for Palestine
> Then No Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to the discussion than just using the copy'n'paste function and someone else's ideas to make your point.  Sometimes, you have to be able to use your personal skill in critical thinking and logic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
Click to expand...


Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I guess I have to use less complicated language.  I'm always being misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the Arabs were an external interference to foreigners creating their state in Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think I said:  Arab League military forces was a form of "external interference."
> 
> Military elements of 5 separate Arab nations crossed their borders and forceable entered the sovereign territory for the newly declared State of Israel.
> 
> *Note:*  This does not include the prepositioned, forward deployed elements of the Arab League.​
> So, yes!  In the case of the Arab League, they were an "external interference" to the UNPC implementation of the Partition Plan; "by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.
Click to expand...


Your point ? They crossed over into the land between the river and the sea. Is that better? That is external interference. Stop playing games Tinmore.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
Click to expand...


Now, about that link that says Palestine was still there when the mandate left........


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, about that link that says Palestine was still there when the mandate left........
Click to expand...


You don't seem to realize, toastman, that these posts are just notes from a class that Tinmore is teaching in "Palestinian Abstract Philosophy 101".


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the passage that confirms what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
Click to expand...




 Like you forgot to add that Palestine was never mentioned in the links you provided and said it was.
 You asked for the proof and got it so stop trying to lay the blame on others.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is not really debatable; merely a matter of record.



P F Tinmore said:


> You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether you consider the territory to be Israel, or territory under the protection and guidance of the UN through the Successor Government (the UNPC), each of the 5 Armies crossed the international boundaries of their respective nations and entered a territory beyond their sovereignty to intentionally interfere with the implementation of a General Assembly Resolution.

It doesn't matter if you recognize the boundaries of Israel.  The "external interference" happened when the Armies of the Arab League entered the territory under the protection and control of the UN for the purpose of conducting hostile activities.  Those forces went beyond their respective borders, to interrupt the lawful activities of the UN and the Successor Government; which was an act of aggression on the part of the 5 participating Armies of the Arab League (an external interference).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

Yeppers...

This idea of "_It doesn't matter if we invaded, because your borders were not well-defined at the time_" - ignoring the quantifiable and demonstrable land-mass under control of both parties at the moment of the termination of the Mandate - and ignoring invader interference with communications (_food supplies to Jerusalem and other settlements_) borders on irrationality.

It has the look and feel (and smell) of a fourth-grade recess-yard exercise in sophistry.

Not exactly the mark of an all-'round high-caliber intellectual exercise.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

I think I had the date inserted appropriately.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.


*(COMMENT)*

The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began _(a proto-Mandate period)_; pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.

The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.

I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying.  There was no slight of hand intended here.  I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.

*(APOLOGY)*

If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

It is clear to me that Europeans, starting in the late 1800s, began settling in Palestine supported by the occupying power of the time, either Turkey or UK, against the wishes of the indigenous Christians and Muslims. Having been dispossessed,  these Christians and Muslims probably had a gripe against the European settlers.  I can understand their position.  Unfortunately,  outside of providing them for them financially  (the fault lies with the British, French and Americans who supported the ethnic cleansing of the local Christians and Muslims so they should foot the bill), there is no way Israel will allow a Palestinian state to be established.  Those non-Jews within Palestine will have to submit to a role of second-class citizens until such time that the non-Jews become a majority, then all bets are off.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> It is clear to me that Europeans, starting in the late 1800s, began settling in Palestine supported by the occupying power of the time, either Turkey or UK, against the wishes of the indigenous Christians and Muslims. Having been dispossessed,  these Christians and Muslims probably had a gripe against the European settlers.  I can understand their position.  Unfortunately,  outside of providing them for them financially  (the fault lies with the British, French and Americans who supported the ethnic cleansing of the local Christians and Muslims so they should foot the bill), there is no way Israel will allow a Palestinian state to be established.  Those non-Jews within Palestine will have to submit to a role of second-class citizens until such time that the non-Jews become a majority, then all bets are off.


There is some considerable merit in what you say here.

I disagree with the bit about non-Jews becoming the majority.

Why?

One need look no further than the Palestinians' own maps of their dwindling lands...







The remaining Muslim-Arabs will be expelled into Jordan and Lebanon long before such 'demographics' pressure can be brought to bear.

The Jews have been waiting 2000 years to take back their Homeland.

They're not about to let Demographics Pressure take that away from them again.

In the words of that old Cajun chef, Justin Wilson...






I garrrrre-rownnnnn-_teeeee_.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> It is clear to me that Europeans, starting in the late 1800s, began settling in Palestine supported by the occupying power of the time, either Turkey or UK, against the wishes of the indigenous Christians and Muslims. Having been dispossessed,  these Christians and Muslims probably had a gripe against the European settlers.  I can understand their position.  Unfortunately,  outside of providing them for them financially  (the fault lies with the British, French and Americans who supported the ethnic cleansing of the local Christians and Muslims so they should foot the bill), there is no way Israel will allow a Palestinian state to be established.  Those non-Jews within Palestine will have to submit to a role of second-class citizens until such time that the non-Jews become a majority, then all bets are off.




Now are you really suggesting that the British officials in the area were lying when they said Arabs flooded into the area from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them?  Why do you think the Hispanics are coming across  our Southern border in great numbers, the same as poor Muslims are flooding into Europe and the Western hemisphere.  Perhaps you are the one to tell that Egyptian official that he is wrong with his statement that the Gazans should come back to Egypt.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> It is clear to me that Europeans, starting in the late 1800s, began settling in Palestine supported by the occupying power of the time, either Turkey or UK, against the wishes of the indigenous Christians and Muslims. Having been dispossessed,  these Christians and Muslims probably had a gripe against the European settlers.  I can understand their position.  Unfortunately,  outside of providing them for them financially  (the fault lies with the British, French and Americans who supported the ethnic cleansing of the local Christians and Muslims so they should foot the bill), there is no way Israel will allow a Palestinian state to be established.  Those non-Jews within Palestine will have to submit to a role of second-class citizens until such time that the non-Jews become a majority, then all bets are off.





 You can of course show a creditable link to the allegations you are making. The only history of migration from the 1800's shows a marked rise in arab migration due to the promise of work on Jewish farms.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear to me that Europeans, starting in the late 1800s, began settling in Palestine supported by the occupying power of the time, either Turkey or UK, against the wishes of the indigenous Christians and Muslims. Having been dispossessed,  these Christians and Muslims probably had a gripe against the European settlers.  I can understand their position.  Unfortunately,  outside of providing them for them financially  (the fault lies with the British, French and Americans who supported the ethnic cleansing of the local Christians and Muslims so they should foot the bill), there is no way Israel will allow a Palestinian state to be established.  Those non-Jews within Palestine will have to submit to a role of second-class citizens until such time that the non-Jews become a majority, then all bets are off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course show a creditable link to the allegations you are making. The only history of migration from the 1800's shows a marked rise in arab migration due to the promise of work on Jewish farms.
Click to expand...


There are facts and then there is propaganda.  

From UN archives, report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 1931. 

3.	Of the 5,533 immigrants registered during the year, 269 with 338 dependants belonged to the class of capitalists with means, including long-term loans, amounting to £P1,000 per family and upwards. 1,896 with 620 dependants were members of the working class; 1,058 were near relatives and dependants of residents in Palestine; and 507 were men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students. Among these classes were the following Jews:--233 capitalists with 286 dependants; 1,603 working men and women with 569 dependants; 813 dependants on residents in Palestine; and 57 men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students......

As recorded, 5,533 immigrants (2,293 men, 2,323 women, and 917 children) were admitted, including 4,075 Jews (1,604 men, 1,863 women, and 608 children). Among these immigrants were 1,580 persons who were in Palestine illegally (Jews 939, Christians 502, Moslems 137, Druzes 2) but received permission to remain permanently in the country. 2,701 of the immigrants came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,146 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 341 from Central Europe, 382 from the United States of America, and 546 (including 197 British Police) from the British Empire (apart from Aden, which is included in Western Asia). 


"


----------



## montelatici

I cannot post links but just Google:

REPORT

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

PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN

FOR THE YEAR

1931


----------



## Indeependent

Mon,
Did the UN have any validity during WWI&II or should every nation border defined by the UN during that timespan be up for grabs?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Indeependent said:


> Mon,
> Did the UN have any validity during WWI&II or should every nation border defined by the UN during that timespan be up for grabs?



The UN did not exist in WWI.  It did not exist in WWII.

And even if it had existed in those periods, what it said could hardly be "binding" on indigenous people anyway.


----------



## GISMYS

Yes!!!ww111 starts in the mideast as nations try to destroy israel and then become ww111 over two billion will die but god protects tiny israel and israel will see and know their victory was from god and they will confess and repent. Ptl.


----------



## GISMYS

ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED,GOD'S LOVE FOR ISRAEL IS ETERNAL!!! PTL.ROMANS 11:26-36==For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mysteryso that you will not be wise in your own estimationthat a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,


The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

27
This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of Gods choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.


----------



## montelatici

Oh dear.


----------



## Kondor3

GISMYS said:


> Yes!!!ww111 starts in the mideast as nations try to destroy israel and then become ww111 over two billion will die but god protects tiny israel and israel will see and know their victory was from god and they will confess and repent. Ptl.


You aren't by any chance a Muslim propaganda plant, are you?

I only ask because I'm fairly sure that when your posts are seen by Christians who support Israel, that they cringe at the thought that they, too, might be perceived as thinking in such terms.

In their place, I would be saying something akin to: "_Please stay off our side_."


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear to me that Europeans, starting in the late 1800s, began settling in Palestine supported by the occupying power of the time, either Turkey or UK, against the wishes of the indigenous Christians and Muslims. Having been dispossessed,  these Christians and Muslims probably had a gripe against the European settlers.  I can understand their position.  Unfortunately,  outside of providing them for them financially  (the fault lies with the British, French and Americans who supported the ethnic cleansing of the local Christians and Muslims so they should foot the bill), there is no way Israel will allow a Palestinian state to be established.  Those non-Jews within Palestine will have to submit to a role of second-class citizens until such time that the non-Jews become a majority, then all bets are off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course show a creditable link to the allegations you are making. The only history of migration from the 1800's shows a marked rise in arab migration due to the promise of work on Jewish farms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are facts and then there is propaganda.
> 
> From UN archives, report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 1931.
> 
> 3.	Of the 5,533 immigrants registered during the year, 269 with 338 dependants belonged to the class of capitalists with means, including long-term loans, amounting to £P1,000 per family and upwards. 1,896 with 620 dependants were members of the working class; 1,058 were near relatives and dependants of residents in Palestine; and 507 were men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students. Among these classes were the following Jews:--233 capitalists with 286 dependants; 1,603 working men and women with 569 dependants; 813 dependants on residents in Palestine; and 57 men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students......
> 
> As recorded, 5,533 immigrants (2,293 men, 2,323 women, and 917 children) were admitted, including 4,075 Jews (1,604 men, 1,863 women, and 608 children). Among these immigrants were 1,580 persons who were in Palestine illegally (Jews 939, Christians 502, Moslems 137, Druzes 2) but received permission to remain permanently in the country. 2,701 of the immigrants came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,146 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 341 from Central Europe, 382 from the United States of America, and 546 (including 197 British Police) from the British Empire (apart from Aden, which is included in Western Asia).
> 
> 
> "
Click to expand...




So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I cannot post links but just Google:
> 
> REPORT
> 
> by His Majesty's Government in the United
> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
> Ireland to the Council of the League of
> Nations on the Administration of
> 
> PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN
> 
> FOR THE YEAR
> 
> 1931



  Still no mention of the 1800's in your post ...................


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course show a creditable link to the allegations you are making. The only history of migration from the 1800's shows a marked rise in arab migration due to the promise of work on Jewish farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are facts and then there is propaganda.
> 
> From UN archives, report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 1931.
> 
> 3.	Of the 5,533 immigrants registered during the year, 269 with 338 dependants belonged to the class of capitalists with means, including long-term loans, amounting to £P1,000 per family and upwards. 1,896 with 620 dependants were members of the working class; 1,058 were near relatives and dependants of residents in Palestine; and 507 were men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students. Among these classes were the following Jews:--233 capitalists with 286 dependants; 1,603 working men and women with 569 dependants; 813 dependants on residents in Palestine; and 57 men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students......
> 
> As recorded, 5,533 immigrants (2,293 men, 2,323 women, and 917 children) were admitted, including 4,075 Jews (1,604 men, 1,863 women, and 608 children). Among these immigrants were 1,580 persons who were in Palestine illegally (Jews 939, Christians 502, Moslems 137, Druzes 2) but received permission to remain permanently in the country. 2,701 of the immigrants came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,146 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 341 from Central Europe, 382 from the United States of America, and 546 (including 197 British Police) from the British Empire (apart from Aden, which is included in Western Asia).
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?
Click to expand...


You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.

In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.


----------



## SAYIT

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are facts and then there is propaganda.
> 
> From UN archives, report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 1931.
> 
> 3.	Of the 5,533 immigrants registered during the year, 269 with 338 dependants belonged to the class of capitalists with means, including long-term loans, amounting to £P1,000 per family and upwards. 1,896 with 620 dependants were members of the working class; 1,058 were near relatives and dependants of residents in Palestine; and 507 were men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students. Among these classes were the following Jews:--233 capitalists with 286 dependants; 1,603 working men and women with 569 dependants; 813 dependants on residents in Palestine; and 57 men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students......
> 
> As recorded, 5,533 immigrants (2,293 men, 2,323 women, and 917 children) were admitted, including 4,075 Jews (1,604 men, 1,863 women, and 608 children). Among these immigrants were 1,580 persons who were in Palestine illegally (Jews 939, Christians 502, Moslems 137, Druzes 2) but received permission to remain permanently in the country. 2,701 of the immigrants came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,146 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 341 from Central Europe, 382 from the United States of America, and 546 (including 197 British Police) from the British Empire (apart from Aden, which is included in Western Asia).
> 
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
Click to expand...


Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!


----------



## montelatici

SAYIT said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!
Click to expand...


I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that anyone here with any smarts at all thinks that Sayit, a sharp fellow, communicates with morons.  Possibly you can give us the facts you are stating from some regular encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some history department at a major university.  I am sure something like this would be covered in a Middle East history department..


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that anyone here with any smarts at all thinks that Sayit, a sharp fellow, communicates with morons.  Possibly you can give us the facts you are stating from some regular encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some history department at a major university.  I am sure something like this would be covered in a Middle East history department..
Click to expand...


I cannot post links, it is not allowed until one has posted a certain number of posts.  I have stated this a number of times.  I have provided text to google to reach the various archives.  That's the best I can do.


----------



## Ronin

Kondor3 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!!ww111 starts in the mideast as nations try to destroy israel and then become ww111 over two billion will die but god protects tiny israel and israel will see and know their victory was from god and they will confess and repent. Ptl.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't by any chance a Muslim propaganda plant, are you?
> 
> I only ask because I'm fairly sure that when your posts are seen by Christians who support Israel, that they cringe at the thought that they, too, might be perceived as thinking in such terms.
> 
> In their place, I would be saying something akin to: "_Please stay off our side_."
Click to expand...


I'm starting to think he is a devil worshipper who is cleverly (or not so) using reverse psychology to turn people away from Christianity.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that anyone here with any smarts at all thinks that Sayit, a sharp fellow, communicates with morons.  Possibly you can give us the facts you are stating from some regular encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some history department at a major university.  I am sure something like this would be covered in a Middle East history department..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot post links, it is not allowed until one has posted a certain number of posts.  I have stated this a number of times.  I have provided text to google to reach the various archives.  That's the best I can do.
Click to expand...


Tell you what.  When you have the required number of posts, come back here and give us some info from a regular encyclopedia or a history department at a major university.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is not really debatable; merely a matter of record.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether you consider the territory to be Israel, or territory under the protection and guidance of the UN through the Successor Government (the UNPC), each of the 5 Armies crossed the international boundaries of their respective nations and entered a territory beyond their sovereignty to intentionally interfere with the implementation of a General Assembly Resolution.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you recognize the boundaries of Israel.  The "external interference" happened when the Armies of the Arab League entered the territory under the protection and control of the UN for the purpose of conducting hostile activities.  Those forces went beyond their respective borders, to interrupt the lawful activities of the UN and the Successor Government; which was an act of aggression on the part of the 5 participating Armies of the Arab League (an external interference).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect Palestine.

How do you call that interference?


----------



## Ronin

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that anyone here with any smarts at all thinks that Sayit, a sharp fellow, communicates with morons.  Possibly you can give us the facts you are stating from some regular encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some history department at a major university.  I am sure something like this would be covered in a Middle East history department..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot post links, it is not allowed until one has posted a certain number of posts.  I have stated this a number of times.  I have provided text to google to reach the various archives.  That's the best I can do.
Click to expand...


Im new to these forums as well.  I will say most of the people who post here have done more research than those in other forums I experienced in the past.   If you read through some of the other threads it wont be long before you realize most all threads about this issue could be combined into one long ongoing thread.  The debates seem to all end up on the same points.

IMHO it is a matter of historical interpretation.  In other words, regardless of the source, people are going to take away what they want to take away from historical documentation.  Example: the British census from that time documented an Arab majority.  A census done by the British would seem to be as close to reliable as possible for historical record.   Someone from another point of view will see it as being inaccurate and provide sources with reasons why it is not reliable.  

The links most (not all) post are telling when research is done on who is funding the site on both sides of the issue.

People on both sides dont understand how any conclusion could be drawn other than the one they have arrived at with the amount of historical information available.  Historical interpretation.  Debate becomes nearly impossible when the Old Testament is placed as the fulcrum of historical reliability.  

What it really seems to be is a place where people can go to vent their frustration about the topic.  Perspectives are not going to change.  Something else that makes this forum unique to any of the others I have seen is one can apparently throw out insults and not get banned. (I may be wrong about that- but they get pretty brutal here.)  

For myself I attempt to refrain from even pulling historical sources.  Its difficult for me to presume I can post anything on this subject someone hasnt already read and formulated to their own view one way or the other.  What may be accomplished is an understanding of why someone thinks the way they do.  I find the greatest interest in hearing what the members who live in Israel have to say.  My view was completely opposite during the times I visited there than what it is today.  I regret not be able to converse with some of the people I met about this issues debated here.

If you continue to post(I hope you do) try to refrain from giving in to easy insults.  It detracts power from your points.  Again, only my humble opinion.  Good luck and debating!


----------



## montelatici

I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans.  Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal.  Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that.  What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here.  And, having lived with them  (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much.  They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.  

I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is not really debatable; merely a matter of record.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether you consider the territory to be Israel, or territory under the protection and guidance of the UN through the Successor Government (the UNPC), each of the 5 Armies crossed the international boundaries of their respective nations and entered a territory beyond their sovereignty to intentionally interfere with the implementation of a General Assembly Resolution.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you recognize the boundaries of Israel.  The "external interference" happened when the Armies of the Arab League entered the territory under the protection and control of the UN for the purpose of conducting hostile activities.  Those forces went beyond their respective borders, to interrupt the lawful activities of the UN and the Successor Government; which was an act of aggression on the part of the 5 participating Armies of the Arab League (an external interference).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect Palestine.
> 
> How do you call that interference?
Click to expand...



Protect Palestine HAHAHAH!!! And you accuse others of posting propaganda

BTW, you just asked how is it that 5 countries entering into another people's territory to join a war that does not involve them is interference.

If there was ever a time that this emoticon was needed, it's right now:




BTW, if they went in to protect the 'Palestinians', why didn't that happen ?


----------



## Ronin

montelatici said:


> I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans.  Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal.  Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that.  What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here.  And, having lived with them  (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much.  They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.
> 
> I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.



Zionists and most Christians which have a majority  of the influence that funds some of Israel's arsenal will view any aggression from the Palestinian side as terrorism and Israel only defending itself.  Right of return aside continued settlement expansion in the West Bank is not seen as an aggressive act but that similar to American Manifest Destiny.

The vilification goes deeper than that.  The very story Israel uses as its spiritual basis for operating the way it has teaches at a foundational level Arabs are the "ass of man".  I understand that Christians think Israel has to be a state in order for the end of this world to happen.  I have never understood how they can really get along though.  The Jewish people I have spoke with pretty much denounce the idea of Christ being God.


----------



## montelatici

Ronin said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans.  Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal.  Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that.  What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here.  And, having lived with them  (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much.  They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.
> 
> I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists and most Christians which have a majority  of the influence that funds some of Israel's arsenal will view any aggression from the Palestinian side as terrorism and Israel only defending itself.  Right of return aside continued settlement expansion in the West Bank is not seen as an aggressive act but that similar to American Manifest Destiny.
> 
> The vilification goes deeper than that.  The very story Israel uses as its spiritual basis for operating the way it has teaches at a foundational level Arabs are the "ass of man".  I understand that Christians think Israel has to be a state in order for the end of this world to happen.  I have never understood how they can really get along though.  The Jewish people I have spoke with pretty much denounce the idea of Christ being God.
Click to expand...


American Christians do not realize that Jews consider Jesus Christ a charlatan.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I think I had the date inserted appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began _(a proto-Mandate period)_; pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.
> 
> The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.
> 
> I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying.  There was no slight of hand intended here.  I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.
> 
> *(APOLOGY)*
> 
> If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco,

You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.

Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. Everything I see points away from that premise.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans.  Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal.  Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that.  What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here.  And, having lived with them  (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much.  They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.
> 
> I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.



Was that posting the definition of Vague in some not well known Encyclopedia?

Could you restate that?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are facts and then there is propaganda.
> 
> From UN archives, report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 1931.
> 
> 3.	Of the 5,533 immigrants registered during the year, 269 with 338 dependants belonged to the class of capitalists with means, including long-term loans, amounting to £P1,000 per family and upwards. 1,896 with 620 dependants were members of the working class; 1,058 were near relatives and dependants of residents in Palestine; and 507 were men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students. Among these classes were the following Jews:--233 capitalists with 286 dependants; 1,603 working men and women with 569 dependants; 813 dependants on residents in Palestine; and 57 men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students......
> 
> As recorded, 5,533 immigrants (2,293 men, 2,323 women, and 917 children) were admitted, including 4,075 Jews (1,604 men, 1,863 women, and 608 children). Among these immigrants were 1,580 persons who were in Palestine illegally (Jews 939, Christians 502, Moslems 137, Druzes 2) but received permission to remain permanently in the country. 2,701 of the immigrants came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,146 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 341 from Central Europe, 382 from the United States of America, and 546 (including 197 British Police) from the British Empire (apart from Aden, which is included in Western Asia).
> 
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
Click to expand...




 So you are caught lying and cant provide the evidence of your post, now why doesn't that surprise me. You could provide the links by simply typing them in.

 The facts remain that the largest migrant group to Palestine was the arab muslims who went looking for work. The Jewish migration was minimal from 1800 till the 1940's.


----------



## Phoenall

SAYIT said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!
Click to expand...




 Just goes to show that the reality is that it was the arabs that were invading the land and not the Jews. But then the Jew haters will always bend the truth to support their POV.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
Click to expand...





 See bending the facts by changing the numerical method.

 If the Europeans increase by 100 and the arabs increase by 10,000 which group has increased the most. In this circumstance you are starting with a low population figure for the Jews and ahigh one for the arabs so you have to use the original numbers as a starting point. You cant compare percentages in this situation as it gives a flawed result skewed in your favours. 
 So the Jews increased by 34,000 while the rest increased by 195,000, now which group is the invaders and why should we be more concerned about them ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.
> 
> In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled.  The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by *34,000* in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by *only 195,000*. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
Click to expand...





 Just noticed your ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED in this post when you refuse to deal with the evidence that the JEWS were indigenous as well, and refused to allocate the arab contingent migrant status.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are used to communicating with morons.  The European population more  than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that anyone here with any smarts at all thinks that Sayit, a sharp fellow, communicates with morons.  Possibly you can give us the facts you are stating from some regular encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some history department at a major university.  I am sure something like this would be covered in a Middle East history department..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot post links, it is not allowed until one has posted a certain number of posts.  I have stated this a number of times.  I have provided text to google to reach the various archives.  That's the best I can do.
Click to expand...




 You have exceeded that number so post the links, but make sure they are not as biased as you so obviously are.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is not really debatable; merely a matter of record.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether you consider the territory to be Israel, or territory under the protection and guidance of the UN through the Successor Government (the UNPC), each of the 5 Armies crossed the international boundaries of their respective nations and entered a territory beyond their sovereignty to intentionally interfere with the implementation of a General Assembly Resolution.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you recognize the boundaries of Israel.  The "external interference" happened when the Armies of the Arab League entered the territory under the protection and control of the UN for the purpose of conducting hostile activities.  Those forces went beyond their respective borders, to interrupt the lawful activities of the UN and the Successor Government; which was an act of aggression on the part of the 5 participating Armies of the Arab League (an external interference).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect Palestine.
> 
> How do you call that interference?
Click to expand...




 Because they did not need to enter at all, they did so to destroy newly created Israel and mass murder all the Jews. They entered Jewish territory on all fronts and were beaten by a rag-tag army of farmers and tailors. They attempted to change the UN charter by means of force and the UN should have mobilised an army against them after kicking them out of the UN.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans.  Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal.  Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that.  What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here.  And, having lived with them  (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much.  They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.
> 
> I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists and most Christians which have a majority  of the influence that funds some of Israel's arsenal will view any aggression from the Palestinian side as terrorism and Israel only defending itself.  Right of return aside continued settlement expansion in the West Bank is not seen as an aggressive act but that similar to American Manifest Destiny.
> 
> The vilification goes deeper than that.  The very story Israel uses as its spiritual basis for operating the way it has teaches at a foundational level Arabs are the "ass of man".  I understand that Christians think Israel has to be a state in order for the end of this world to happen.  I have never understood how they can really get along though.  The Jewish people I have spoke with pretty much denounce the idea of Christ being God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians do not realize that Jews consider Jesus Christ a charlatan.
Click to expand...




 And in this you are also wrong as the Jews view Christ as just another prophet, just not the messiah as prophesised.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I think I had the date inserted appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began _(a proto-Mandate period)_; pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.
> 
> The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.
> 
> I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying.  There was no slight of hand intended here.  I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.
> 
> *(APOLOGY)*
> 
> If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.
> 
> Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. Everything I see points away from that premise.
Click to expand...




 Then produce a treaty signed by a Palestinian leader that proclaims Palestine as a nation within the borders allocate at that time. It is that simple to do, yet you seem to find it very difficult to produce such a document prior to 1988. Do you think history is trying to tell you something ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Nonsense!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I had the date inserted appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began _(a proto-Mandate period)_; pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.
> 
> The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.
> 
> I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying.  There was no slight of hand intended here.  I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.
> 
> *(APOLOGY)*
> 
> If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.
> 
> Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. Everything I see points away from that premise.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;" until 1988.  The character of the mandate has nothing to do with the establishment of the country, state and nation through Independence. To use the term "Palestinian" (pre-1988) was to mean the "people of the Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "people of the former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine."

Secondly, the ability of the to "stand alone" is an important aspect.  Clearly, the people of Syria and the partitioned-off portion to make Lebanon, as well as Jordan, were critical in determining their independence and sovereignty.  Please notice that the Treaties did not mention Jordan and Lebanon.  Under the Allied Powers, they were separated identities.  

The region of Palestine (The Territory under Mandate) was also Partitioned into Jordan, Israel and another Arab State; just like the Territory under French Mandate was Partitioned into Syria and Lebanon.

You can carry-on all you want about some pre-1988 territory that was not recognized as a sovereign (able to stand alone).  It doesn't matter because the reality is already written.  But even today, what is recognized as the State of Palestine, is really not able to stand alone and support itself.  Even the legitimacy of the government is in question from a domestic standpoint.  Every year, like a beggar on the street, sponsors like the US, have to reach-out to donor nations to gather contributions to support a quasi-functional government and support the Palestine.  In 2013, the Palestinian cabinet passes $3.9 billion budget for 2013, of which $1.4B was provided by donor nations.



			
				Palestine - Billions In International Donor Funds Allegedly Go Missing said:
			
		

> Billions of euros in European aid to the PLO and Hamas between 2008 and 2012 may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption - according to an unpublished report by the European Court of Auditors - a Luxembourg-based watchdog - disclosed in an article appearing in The Sunday Times on 14 October.
> 
> Brussels reportedly transferred more than US$2.64 billion to the West Bank and Gaza in that four year period - but had little control over how it was spent - the auditors said in the damning report seen by The Sunday Times.
> 
> EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank noted &#8220;significant shortcomings&#8221; in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the West Bank.
> 
> These disturbing revelations followed closely on the heels of a report in Ma&#8217;an News on 10 October claiming that the Palestinian Authority&#8217;s (PA) anti-corruption commission - established in 2010 - was working to retrieve PLO-owned land registered to individual PLO leaders - according to commission chief Rafiq al-Natsheh.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ By David Singer Sunday, October 20, 2013



The PAL Budget for 2014 was approved at $4.2B.  The Palestine Economic Initiative (PEI) &#8211; a US Development Plan for the economies of the West Bank and Gaza over the next three years _[as a prerequisite (the bribe to bring them to the table) for a political settlement to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict]_ is targeted to bring a a 50% increase in Palestinian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over three years, cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates, and a virtual doubling of the Palestinian median wage.  This is not something the Palestinians could do, or even negotiate, on their own; but, criminals that they are, were able to extort from the Peace Players in exchange for the negotiations held as hostage.

No moral high ground here.

In regards to the Clause 4 or Article 22, Covenant of the League of Nations, it should be noted that it says:


"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

These two sentences do not deal exclusively with the small regional subdivision of the Mandate of Palestine alone.  And the Mandate, written by the same authorities as wrote the Covenant, had a specific charge to accomplish other objectives:


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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and 

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.

Article 22 (paragraph 8):  "The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council."
Please see the Order in Council as previously discussed.


Finally, I claimed that what it means to say "Palestine" and what it means to be "Palestinian" is being taken out of context by you.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> But even today, what is recognized as the State of Palestine, is really not able to stand alone and support itself.



Of course not. Israel has stolen, bombed, or bulldozed most of Palestine's economic infrastructure.

I think you should lay the blame on the assholes who have created this situation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"



The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.





> *ARTICLE 22.*​
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle *that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation* and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)





> The importance of the right of self- determination of the Palestinian people was stressed repeatedly by the Court25 and by judges in their separate opinions. Judge Higgins declared that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.
> 
> From the 2004 Opinion of the International Court it is clear that the sacred trust contained in the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate with the dissolution of the League of Nations. Nor did it terminate with the withdrawal of the mandatory Power in 1948 or the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 in a portion of the mandated territory of Palestine. *The Mandate imposed a special international status on the territory of Palestine as a whole, which continues to exist until the independence of the whole of Palestine is achieved and the sacred trust is fulfilled.*
> 
> Britain?s betrayal of the sacred trust in Palestine, Prof John Dugard | The Balfour Project



The rights of the Palestinians has not expired. Violations of their rights do not negate their rights.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, so they do.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
Click to expand...

*(TWO QUESTIONS)*


The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, so they do.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(TWO QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?
> 
> Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> I think I had the date inserted appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began _(a proto-Mandate period)_; pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.
> 
> The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.
> 
> I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying.  There was no slight of hand intended here.  I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.
> 
> *(APOLOGY)*
> 
> If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.
> 
> Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. *Everything I see points away from that premise*.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you see or what you say you see. You have zero credibility


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, so they do.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(TWO QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?
> 
> Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.
Click to expand...


Again with this useless statement LOL

The armistice agreements were between WHAT STATE, WITH LEBANON, JORDAN, EGYPT, SYRIA??


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, so they do.
> 
> 
> *(TWO QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?
> 
> Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with this useless statement LOL
> 
> The armistice agreements were between WHAT STATE, WITH LEBANON, JORDAN, EGYPT, SYRIA??
Click to expand...


Answer to toastman's question:  Israel.


----------



## toastman

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 *between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 *between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria*



toastman, you are risking a C in Palestinian Abstract Philosophy 101.  How will you bring up your GPA?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 *between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria*



A place or state called Israel was not mentioned.

Territory that Israel occupied/controlled was still called Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 *between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A place or state called Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Territory that Israel occupied/controlled was still called Palestine.
Click to expand...



The world 'Israeli' is mentioned several times. The fact that the word Israel is not mentioned means nothing, and you know it.

The armistice agreements were between Israel and those 4 states. Where in the armistice agreements does it mention anything about Israel occupying Palestine territory ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I see.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, so they do.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(TWO QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?
> 
> Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

So you are saying that those four (4) Armistice Agreements are just handing out there, and were not made with the State of Israel?

Or - are you saying you don't know?

I seem to recall that you previously Posted in #463 these links.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949



And I see on the UN Archive, that each and every one of them is signed "For and on behalf of the Government of Israel."


CABLEGRAM DATED 23 FEBRUARY 1949 FROM THE ACTING MEDIATOR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF AN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL

CABLEGRAM DATED 22 MARCH 1949 FROM THE ACTING MEDIATOR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF AN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL

CABLEGRAM DATED 3 APRIL 1949 FROM THE ACTING MEDIATOR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF A GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN AND ISRAEL

COMMUNICATION DATED 20 JULY 1949 FROM THE UNITED NATIONS ACTING MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE TO THE ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF AN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA

What do you think?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, what does the fact that the word Israel not being mentioned mean ?? What are you trying to say?


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I see.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, so they do.
> 
> 
> *(TWO QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?
> 
> Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So you are saying that those four (4) Armistice Agreements are just handing out there, and were not made with the State of Israel?
> 
> Or - are you saying you don't know?
> 
> I seem to recall that you previously Posted in #463 these links.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I see on the UN Archive, that each and every one of them is signed "For and on behalf of the Government of Israel."
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 23 FEBRUARY 1949 FROM THE ACTING MEDIATOR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF AN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 22 MARCH 1949 FROM THE ACTING MEDIATOR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF AN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 3 APRIL 1949 FROM THE ACTING MEDIATOR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF A GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN AND ISRAEL
> 
> COMMUNICATION DATED 20 JULY 1949 FROM THE UNITED NATIONS ACTING MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE TO THE ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL TRANSMITTING THE TEXT OF AN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


He doesn't even know what he's saying. He's a moron


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even today, what is recognized as the State of Palestine, is really not able to stand alone and support itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Israel has stolen, bombed, or bulldozed most of Palestine's economic infrastructure.
> 
> I think you should lay the blame on the assholes who have created this situation.
Click to expand...





Yes the Palestinians themselves who attacked Israel and tried to murder the children. If they had not done so then they would be a thriving nation by now. just look at the Israeli withdrawal from gaza in August 2005, shows that the muslims don't want peace they just want everything.

 So yes lets blame the assholes who have created this monster in the name of Mohamed and allah,    * THE MUSLIM ARARBS*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
Click to expand...




 YES  as a place name and not a nation. When it speaks of Israel it say the nation of Israel or the state of Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
Click to expand...




 Just checked and it does not mention Palestine at all.

 The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria.[4] The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 ArabIsraeli War, and established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*​
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle *that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation* and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The importance of the right of self- determination of the Palestinian people was stressed repeatedly by the Court25 and by judges in their separate opinions. Judge Higgins declared that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.
> 
> From the 2004 Opinion of the International Court it is clear that the sacred trust contained in the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate with the dissolution of the League of Nations. Nor did it terminate with the withdrawal of the mandatory Power in 1948 or the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 in a portion of the mandated territory of Palestine. *The Mandate imposed a special international status on the territory of Palestine as a whole, which continues to exist until the independence of the whole of Palestine is achieved and the sacred trust is fulfilled.*
> 
> Britain?s betrayal of the sacred trust in Palestine, Prof John Dugard | The Balfour Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rights of the Palestinians has not expired. Violations of their rights do not negate their rights.
Click to expand...





 Do those rights also extend to the Jews and Christians of Palestine to form their own nations and governments under the terms of the UN charter ?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just checked and it does not mention Palestine at all.
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria.[4] The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 ArabIsraeli War, and established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That's the Wikipedia article.  The actual Armistice Agreements might mention Palestine as the name of an unincorporated territory.  Don't get caught into his philosophical traps.


----------



## toastman

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just checked and it does not mention Palestine at all.
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria.[4] The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 ArabIsraeli War, and established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and the forces in Jordanian-held West Bank, also known as the Green Line. The United Nations established supervising and reporting agencies to monitor the established armistice lines
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the Wikipedia article.  The actual Armistice Agreements might mention Palestine as the name of an unincorporated territory.  Don't get caught into his philosophical traps.
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly. There is ZERO evidence of Palestine being a country before 1988.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, so they do.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(TWO QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between *"What State"* and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?
> 
> Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.
Click to expand...





 A quick google of the 1949 armistice shows you to be LYING as Israel is mentiond but palestine  isn't.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 *between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A place or state called Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Territory that Israel occupied/controlled was still called Palestine.
Click to expand...




 WRONG as Israel had been recognised as a state in may 1948


----------



## Kondor3

ForeverYoung436 said:


> "..._The actual Armistice Agreements might mention Palestine as the name of an unincorporated territory. Don't get caught into his philosophical traps_."


Yeppers... it's a philosophical trap, alright, even though it's embarrassingly obvious one, and easy to avoid, once you're aware of its existence. Frankly, word games like this are all that the Palestinians and their sympathizers have to go on; not much; something I recently likened to holding a pair of deuces at the Big Boys' poker table.

The paternal side of my family comes from a collective of five (5) tiny villages (Somborn, Neuses, Bernbach, Horbach and Altenmittlau) 15-20km to the east of Hanau, Germany; all within easy walking distance of each other.

They have been collectively known as 'Freigericht' (Free Court) since the late 1100s, when, legend has it, the Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa granted the peasants and burghers of those villages the right to hold their own justice-court (_as opposed to relying upon the Imperial court in Fulda for everything_) as a reward for coming to his aid when he and a traveling party were ambushed by a local warlord nearby.

Those five villages were thusly defined as a 'region' known as 'Freigericht', and they even had some trappings of collaborative administration - their Free Court (which lasted for some centuries after the grant) - but each village governed itself. There was no such self-governing and autonomous polity known as 'Freigericht'.

In 1970, some 800 (-ish) years after the decree by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, those five villages finally banded together into a municipal polity roughly akin to an American 'township' model - consolidating down to one Village Hall and one Police Department, one Fire Department, one school district, one taxing authority, and one set of bureaucrats, etc. - actually becoming an incorporated, chartered polity.

And, if any of those five villages did not wish to participate in that polity, they had that option, and could have broken away at any time during the chartering process and struck out on their own.

There are similarities (on a different scale) with Old Palestine.

The region has been known as 'Palestine' ever since the Romans knocked-over the last of the Jewish puppet-state kinglets that had governed in the name of Rome.

There may even have been occasional glimmers of 'home rule' here and there, scattered across the centuries, but nothing substantive and durable or even noteworthy, other than local magistrates and an occasional and odd home-grown governor or administrator here and there.

But nothing even remotely resembling a Nation or a Distinct People ever existed, nor were even attempted until after the Jews of Old Palestine had broken away in 1948 and struck out on their own; the Palestinians declaring 4-5 months later, and again in 1988, a day late and a dollar short - the usual outcome of incompetent Palestinian political activism.

You can't declare a State and a People RETROACTIVELY - not in the Real World, amongst practical men and women.

And that's what the foolish Palestinians and their sympathizers are trying to do here; declare a State and a People retroactively; conjuring-up all sorts of erzatz and humorous rationale for our amusement and dining pleasure... dinner AND a show! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








Rather like the old 1960s movie, Cool Hand Luke...

Coming at the world with a handfulla nuthin...

Sometimes, nuthin can be a real cool hand...

Sometimes, not... as is the case here.

They keep hammering away at this Retroactive Nation and People idea, to no purpose...

And keep whining about ancient legalities and spin-doctored legal interpretations, as if that actually means anything in the Real World of today...

They do it because it's all they've got...

A handfulla nuthin...

A pair of deuces - one showin', one in the hole - with one card left to draw - at the Big Boys' poker table - and they've been 'called' and 'bumped'...

No wonder they're losing their shirt...

The fools don't know when to fold...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 *between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A place or state called Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Territory that Israel occupied/controlled was still called Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as Israel had been recognised as a state in may 1948
Click to expand...




> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine*, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949



Hmmmm.


----------



## montelatici

An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919.  



(3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase. In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting": "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery."* If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. - *

King-Crane Commission recommendations - Syria/Palestine and Iraq - Non-UN document (29 August 1919)


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A place or state called Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Territory that Israel occupied/controlled was still called Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as Israel had been recognised as a state in may 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine*, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
Click to expand...


Warned you, Phoenall.

However Tinmore, doesn't it also say JORDANIAN-ISRAELI Agreement?  You can't just cherry-pick and choose words to your liking.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> "_An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919_..."


Which is about as relevant as - and binding as - and as valuable as - a roll of Charmin, in our present age.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is about as relevant as - and binding as - and as valuable as - a roll of Charmin, in our present age.
Click to expand...


Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is about as relevant as - and binding as - and as valuable as - a roll of Charmin, in our present age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
Click to expand...

And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...

Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...

Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919.
> 
> 
> 
> (3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. *For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.* The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase. In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting": "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery."* If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. - *
> 
> King-Crane Commission recommendations - Syria/Palestine and Iraq - Non-UN document (29 August 1919)



Indeed.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is about as relevant as - and binding as - and as valuable as - a roll of Charmin, in our present age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
Click to expand...


Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
Click to expand...


And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, it was known even then that the European-contrived and supported goal of creating a Jewish Homeland on their old ancestral grounds would prove problematic. Can't blame the Jews of Europe for buying into the idea, after waiting for the better part of 2000 years to return. They saw their opportunity and they seized upon it. Most of us would have done the same, under identical or similar ciircumstances. The Arabs of the region were simply in-the-way; an impediment, to be circumvented; by both the Euro-Christians and the Jews. As they already have been, in large part.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
Click to expand...


I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, alternatively, it was known even then that the European-contrived and supported goal of creating a Jewish Homeland on their old ancestral grounds would prove problematic. Can't blame the Jews of Europe for buying into the idea, after waiting for the better part of 2000 years to return. They saw their opportunity and they seized upon it. Most of us would have done the same, under identical or similar ciircumstances. The Arabs of the region were simply in-the-way; an impediment, to be circumvented; by both the Euro-Christians and the Jews. As they already have been, in large part.
Click to expand...


If that were the case, I doubt the commission would have written:

"This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up."

King-Crane Commission recommendations - Syria/Palestine and Iraq - Non-UN document (29 August 1919)


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


"Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


All the blatant injustice amongst the Islamo murderers in the ME and the only obsession you have is with Israel.
You're not a very good humanist.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
Click to expand...


Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?


----------



## Indeependent

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
Click to expand...


People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?
Click to expand...


I already asked how the mind reading was accomplished; you didn't answer.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the blatant injustice amongst the Islamo murderers in the ME and the only obsession you have is with Israel.
> You're not a very good humanist.
Click to expand...


If Israel lets these barbarous tigers out of the cage, can you imagine all the carnage?


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?
Click to expand...


The only resolution to the conflict that will satisfy you will result in the Jews being driven into the Mediterranean.
You know what the Holocaust taught us?
Being nice kills.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already asked how the mind reading was accomplished; you didn't answer.
Click to expand...


And I explained that no mind reading was necessary, the report's authors spelled it out.  You do have to read the report though and you have to understand what you are reading.  It appears to me that all you are interested in is responding in what you think is a clever manner but it doesn't come out that way.  Take a deep breath, think it through and then respond.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only resolution to the conflict that will satisfy you will result in the Jews being driven into the Mediterranean.
> You know what the Holocaust taught us?
> Being nice kills.
Click to expand...


My goodness, now the hysterics.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only resolution to the conflict that will satisfy you will result in the Jews being driven into the Mediterranean.
> You know what the Holocaust taught us?
> Being nice kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness, now the hysterics.
Click to expand...


Question...
Israel won how many wars against Egypt, Syria and Jordan and these Arab nations skill exist?
If Israel lost ONE of these wars, would Israel still exist?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only resolution to the conflict that will satisfy you will result in the Jews being driven into the Mediterranean.
> You know what the Holocaust taught us?
> Being nice kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness, now the hysterics.
Click to expand...


To you it might be hysterics.  I personally remember the string of suicide bombings after the Oslo Accords.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A place or state called Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> Territory that Israel occupied/controlled was still called Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as Israel had been recognised as a state in may 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine*, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
Click to expand...


What are you trying to prove by this Tinmore??

And what are you trying to tell us when you say that ISRAEL is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreement. What are you getting at? Please tell me


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, toastman, P F Tinmore, _et al,_

He is trying to say that by using the phrase "southernmost tip of Palestine," means (literally) that "Palestine" was some sort of nation or state with a geographic boundary.



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as Israel had been recognised as a state in may 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine*, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by this Tinmore??
> 
> And what are you trying to tell us when you say that ISRAEL is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreement. What are you getting at? Please tell me
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948



*(COMMENT)*

As our friend "Phoenall" in Posting 1207, as well as others, _(and without regard to the much older single-commission opinion of King-Crane a half-century earlier)_ whatever you want to call the place holder "Palestine," in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.   It was a territory --- unable to stand on its own, totally dependent on the administrator government (either the UK or the UNPC) which were "entirely responsible --- both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

There can be nothing plainer than this.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, toastman, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> He is trying to say that by using the phrase "southernmost tip of Palestine," means (literally) that "Palestine" was some sort of nation or state with a geographic boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by this Tinmore??
> 
> And what are you trying to tell us when you say that ISRAEL is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreement. What are you getting at? Please tell me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As our friend "Phoenall" in Posting 1207, as well as others, _(and without regard to the much older single-commission opinion of King-Crane a half-century earlier)_ whatever you want to call the place holder "Palestine," in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.   It was a territory --- unable to stand on its own, totally dependent on the administrator government (either the UK or the UNPC) which were "entirely responsible --- both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> There can be nothing plainer than this.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.



The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.


----------



## toastman

There is ZERO evidence of Palestine being a sovereign state before 1988. Tinmore is a liar.

In fact, he has made a substantial amount of crap up concerning Israel and Palestine. 
You can see what claims in post #989 in page 66 of this thread.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, toastman, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> He is trying to say that by using the phrase "southernmost tip of Palestine," means (literally) that "Palestine" was some sort of nation or state with a geographic boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by this Tinmore??
> 
> And what are you trying to tell us when you say that ISRAEL is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreement. What are you getting at? Please tell me
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As our friend "Phoenall" in Posting 1207, as well as others, _(and without regard to the much older single-commission opinion of King-Crane a half-century earlier)_ whatever you want to call the place holder "Palestine," in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.   It was a territory --- unable to stand on its own, totally dependent on the administrator government (either the UK or the UNPC) which were "entirely responsible --- both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> There can be nothing plainer than this.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME 

For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, toastman, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> He is trying to say that by using the phrase "southernmost tip of Palestine," means (literally) that "Palestine" was some sort of nation or state with a geographic boundary.
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As our friend "Phoenall" in Posting 1207, as well as others, _(and without regard to the much older single-commission opinion of King-Crane a half-century earlier)_ whatever you want to call the place holder "Palestine," in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.   It was a territory --- unable to stand on its own, totally dependent on the administrator government (either the UK or the UNPC) which were "entirely responsible --- both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> There can be nothing plainer than this.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
Click to expand...


Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.

A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
Click to expand...


Well, what Rocco said about Palestine being dependent at that time is true, just like kids are dependent till they move out of the house.  Then they become independent.
About states needing permission to become independent--some states do and some don't.  Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. needed permission because they were all part of mandated territory after WW1.  Palestine needed permission too, but Palestine/Israel had special circumstances surrounding it/them.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite_..."


Oh, the Palestinians exercised their right of self-determination, alright.

They determined to skeddaddle in 1948 when the balloon went up.

They're still paying for that cowardice today.

The Jews (both lifelong residents and immigrants), citizens of The Mandate, also exercised their right of self-determination.

They determined to seccede from the whole and set up shop for themselves.

It's just that the Jews were infinitely better at it than the Arabs were.

Nature favors the quick and de-selects the slow.

Welcome to your consequences.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
Click to expand...


got a link that their territory was defined ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> got a link that their territory was defined ?
Click to expand...


The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.

Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestines territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
---------------------
With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
---------------------
The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypts autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.

The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, there was a potential for the right to self-determination; both for the Jewish and the Arab were being guided in that direction.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*


When did the Palestinians create a State?
The many Arab League _(Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen)_ officially recognized "Palestine" as a state in 1988.  Oddly enough, Lebanon did not recognize Palestine until 2008.  Syria, conversely, officially recognized "Palestine" in 1967, and again in 2011. 

There was an attempt to establish the "All Palestine Government" (APG) by the first Arab Higher Committee.  This attempted failed and the APG was annulled by the Egyptian Government which Occupied the Gaza Strip.  Jordan, which Occupied the West Bank, never recognized the APG and later annexed the West Bank.​
*(QUESTIONS)*


With the exception of these two events, when did the "Palestinians" exercise their right of self-determination _(other than to reject the Plan for an additional Arab State)_, and who knew about it?  _(Tell me they were not keeping it secret.) _


What countries today, officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?


What organizations or activities officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?


If a Palestinian creates a state, and nobody knows about it, does it make a "state?"

Inquiring minds want to know!  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Ronin

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists and most Christians which have a majority  of the influence that funds some of Israel's arsenal will view any aggression from the Palestinian side as terrorism and Israel only defending itself.  Right of return aside continued settlement expansion in the West Bank is not seen as an aggressive act but that similar to American Manifest Destiny.
> 
> The vilification goes deeper than that.  The very story Israel uses as its spiritual basis for operating the way it has teaches at a foundational level Arabs are the "ass of man".  I understand that Christians think Israel has to be a state in order for the end of this world to happen.  I have never understood how they can really get along though.  The Jewish people I have spoke with pretty much denounce the idea of Christ being God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians do not realize that Jews consider Jesus Christ a charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And in this you are also wrong as the Jews view Christ as just another prophet, just not the messiah as prophesised.
Click to expand...


That was from my statement which I was wrong to say.  Would it be fair to say as a whole the view toward Jesus varies?   I was referring to my father's experience.  He converted to Judaism 15 years ago and in the process was told he had to denounce Christ.  Perhaps it was because he was a Christian at the time. IDK  I would get further details but we no longer communicate.

It seems there are a wide spectrum of views.  Prophet as you said, false prophet, charlatan, some who have converted from Judaism to Christianity, some who view him as irrelevant and insignificant, and everything in between.  

This example seems to reflect a view stronger than just a prophet:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcZYdgIMhk]We Killed Jesus, We're Proud Of It!.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

There are others showing where people of Jewish descent accepting Jesus as God.

I should have been specific to make a generalized statement that was incorrect to apply it the manner I did.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, there was a potential for the right to self-determination; both for the Jewish and the Arab were being guided in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians create a State?
> The many Arab League _(Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen)_ officially recognized "Palestine" as a state in 1988.  Oddly enough, Lebanon did not recognize Palestine until 2008.  Syria, conversely, officially recognized "Palestine" in 1967, and again in 2011.
> 
> There was an attempt to establish the "All Palestine Government" (APG) by the first Arab Higher Committee.  This attempted failed and the APG was annulled by the Egyptian Government which Occupied the Gaza Strip.  Jordan, which Occupied the West Bank, never recognized the APG and later annexed the West Bank.​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> With the exception of these two events, when did the "Palestinians" exercise their right of self-determination _(other than to reject the Plan for an additional Arab State)_, and who knew about it?  _(Tell me they were not keeping it secret.) _
> 
> 
> What countries today, officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> What organizations or activities officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> If a Palestinian creates a state, and nobody knows about it, does it make a "state?"
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

So, what is your point?


----------



## Sally

Ronin said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians do not realize that Jews consider Jesus Christ a charlatan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in this you are also wrong as the Jews view Christ as just another prophet, just not the messiah as prophesised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was from my statement which I was wrong to say.  Would it be fair to say as a whole the view toward Jesus varies?   I was referring to my father's experience.  He converted to Judaism 15 years ago and in the process was told he had to denounce Christ.  Perhaps it was because he was a Christian at the time. IDK  I would get further details but we no longer communicate.
> 
> It seems there are a wide spectrum of views.  Prophet as you said, false prophet, charlatan, some who have converted from Judaism to Christianity, some who view him as irrelevant and insignificant, and everything in between.
> 
> This example seems to reflect a view stronger than just a prophet:
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcZYdgIMhk]We Killed Jesus, We're Proud Of It!.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> There are others showing where people of Jewish descent accepting Jesus as God.
> 
> I should have been specific to make a generalized statement that was incorrect to apply it the manner I did.
Click to expand...


Ronin, do you realize that this same video has been pulled up for years and years by anti-Semites as if these dunken kids really represented anything.  Now when I was a kid, I used to hear the kids coming hom from Blessed Sacrament Parochial School singing, "On Monday we go to school; on Tuesday we beat up the Jews."  Do you think that anyone would hold them up to public scrutiny likes these kids in the video have been held up?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got a link that their territory was defined ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestines territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> ---------------------
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> ---------------------
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypts autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


As expected, you didnt answer my question


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh, I thought that was exactly the question.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, there was a potential for the right to self-determination; both for the Jewish and the Arab were being guided in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians create a State?
> The many Arab League _(Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen)_ officially recognized "Palestine" as a state in 1988.  Oddly enough, Lebanon did not recognize Palestine until 2008.  Syria, conversely, officially recognized "Palestine" in 1967, and again in 2011.
> 
> There was an attempt to establish the "All Palestine Government" (APG) by the first Arab Higher Committee.  This attempted failed and the APG was annulled by the Egyptian Government which Occupied the Gaza Strip.  Jordan, which Occupied the West Bank, never recognized the APG and later annexed the West Bank.​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> With the exception of these two events, when did the "Palestinians" exercise their right of self-determination _(other than to reject the Plan for an additional Arab State)_, and who knew about it?  _(Tell me they were not keeping it secret.) _
> 
> 
> What countries today, officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> What organizations or activities officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> If a Palestinian creates a state, and nobody knows about it, does it make a "state?"
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a state.
> 
> So, what is your point?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

So, are your saying that the Palestinians did not want a State or Nation until 1988?   That the whole question is irrelevant!  (WOW!)

*(QUESTION)*

What is the question?

I thought the allegation was that:


The Jewish invaded a Palestinian Country.
That the Jewish stole their Country and currently occupy all of the territory.
That the Jewish denied the Palestinian the right to self-determination.


Or did I get it wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, I thought that was exactly the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, there was a potential for the right to self-determination; both for the Jewish and the Arab were being guided in that direction.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians create a State?
> The many Arab League _(Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen)_ officially recognized "Palestine" as a state in 1988.  Oddly enough, Lebanon did not recognize Palestine until 2008.  Syria, conversely, officially recognized "Palestine" in 1967, and again in 2011.
> 
> There was an attempt to establish the "All Palestine Government" (APG) by the first Arab Higher Committee.  This attempted failed and the APG was annulled by the Egyptian Government which Occupied the Gaza Strip.  Jordan, which Occupied the West Bank, never recognized the APG and later annexed the West Bank.​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> With the exception of these two events, when did the "Palestinians" exercise their right of self-determination _(other than to reject the Plan for an additional Arab State)_, and who knew about it?  _(Tell me they were not keeping it secret.) _
> 
> 
> What countries today, officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> What organizations or activities officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> If a Palestinian creates a state, and nobody knows about it, does it make a "state?"
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a state.
> 
> So, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, are your saying that the Palestinians did not want a State or Nation until 1988?   That the whole question is irrelevant!  (WOW!)
Click to expand...

As you know, the Palestinians called on Britain to create an independent, democratic state as required in the LoN Covenant.

After two and a half decades, there was still no elected government.



> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the question?
> 
> I thought the allegation was that:
> 
> 
> The Jewish invaded a Palestinian Country.
> That the Jewish stole their Country and currently occupy all of the territory.
> That the Jewish denied the Palestinian the right to self-determination.
> 
> 
> Or did I get it wrong.


That was always the Zionist's stated goal. 



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, I thought that was exactly the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a state.
> 
> So, what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, are your saying that the Palestinians did not want a State or Nation until 1988?   That the whole question is irrelevant!  (WOW!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you know, the Palestinians called on Britain to create an independent, democratic state as required in the LoN Covenant.
> 
> After two and a half decades, there was still no elected government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the question?
> 
> I thought the allegation was that:
> 
> 
> The Jewish invaded a Palestinian Country.
> That the Jewish stole their Country and currently occupy all of the territory.
> That the Jewish denied the Palestinian the right to self-determination.
> 
> 
> Or did I get it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was always the Zionist's stated goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nice deflection 

The who Palestinian state conversation started when I asked you a few days ago WHEN Palestine became a country. You lied and told me it became a country the same date as the Treaty of Lausanne. Now all of a sudden you don't want to discuss it because you were proved wrong. Then you should have acknowledged that Rocco was correct in saying that there was no State of Palestine up until 1988.


----------



## Ronin

Sally said:


> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in this you are also wrong as the Jews view Christ as just another prophet, just not the messiah as prophesised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was from my statement which I was wrong to say.  Would it be fair to say as a whole the view toward Jesus varies?   I was referring to my father's experience.  He converted to Judaism 15 years ago and in the process was told he had to denounce Christ.  Perhaps it was because he was a Christian at the time. IDK  I would get further details but we no longer communicate.
> 
> It seems there are a wide spectrum of views.  Prophet as you said, false prophet, charlatan, some who have converted from Judaism to Christianity, some who view him as irrelevant and insignificant, and everything in between.
> 
> This example seems to reflect a view stronger than just a prophet:
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcZYdgIMhk]We Killed Jesus, We're Proud Of It!.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> There are others showing where people of Jewish descent accepting Jesus as God.
> 
> I should have been specific to make a generalized statement that was incorrect to apply it the manner I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronin, do you realize that this same video has been pulled up for years and years by anti-Semites as if these dunken kids really represented anything.  Now when I was a kid, I used to hear the kids coming hom from Blessed Sacrament Parochial School singing, "On Monday we go to school; on Tuesday we beat up the Jews."  Do you think that anyone would hold them up to public scrutiny likes these kids in the video have been held up?
Click to expand...



I was diving in Sharm El Skeikh in 1990, and at the time was a devout Christian.  Even though not planned; I realized how close Israel was and decided go while the opportunity was there.  That is where I met Ron Wyatt. Wyatt Archaeological Research - Official Site of Ron Wyatt's Discoveries.  
It was also my first experience with Israelis.   They were tearing through his equipment (rightly so), but were otherwise professional and polite.  He invited me to go into the desert and look for what he said was the site of Aaron and his golden crown.   He introduced me to several Jewish people who were very kind and fun to be around.  

My first glimpse of Palestinians reminded me of homeless beggars; who from what I was told- were invading troublemakers.  We never did find what he was looking for, but he invited me to assist him again several times over the next few years.  By the time I was in Israel the last visit I was no longer a Christian and had become a skeptic of Ron&#8217;s Work.  

I also met several Coptic Arabs who were very kind.  There were rude and polite people on both sides.  In fact, I met some Israeli girls who were gorgeous (even with the automatic rifles slung around there backs).   Religion aside- people were people.  Individuals were and are unique.  It is completely idiotic to base judgment about an entire group of people on who God is to them.  Provided there is no infringement on others.

Personally, I think all organized religion is misguided and destructive to this world, but it doesn&#8217;t mean I wish physical harm upon them.   With the exception of the Westboro Church lunatics (who I wouldn&#8217;t mind if they went away), spirituality is a personal relationship people have with what they perceive is God.  

It&#8217;s the fellowships (large groups or sects) that affect political policy that have a history of being destructive.  I have Christian and Jewish friends.  We don&#8217;t discuss God and get along great.  If I was constantly harassed about non conformity I would not &#8220;like&#8221; them.  

Having been worshipped as a Catholic, and as a Christian (several sects of it), if I had to choose any religion to worship a god now&#8230; it would be Judaism.  It doesn&#8217;t teach that: - that Jesus was the son of God/Prophet, Trinity, the Virgin Birth of Mary, the Holy Spirit, Heaven and Hell, and proselytizing (which is a HUGE plus). The beliefs in God: are- God is one and unique, is incorporeal and has no shape/form/sex.  As far as organized religions go, it is the most appealing.  But religion or at least the ones present now don&#8217;t go very far in terms of peace on this planet.  They never have.  All religions block the social evolution of the population. 

I am not stating there are not anti-sematic members here.  I recently saw a post by someone with a very offensive cartoon referencing something awful about the Holocaust.  However you appear to use the term "anti-Semite" with anyone against what you see as being 100% Pro-Israel.  

Neturei Karta and similar appear to be fringe in your eyes.  I could be wrong I don&#8217;t want to put words in your mouth.   The bottom line is I don&#8217;t have a hatred for Jewish People.  I disagree with SOME Jewish people. I disagree with the current administration&#8217;s policy of allowing the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank.  I firmly disagree with what appears to be the settlement demeanor.

The is the apex of what I disagree with: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAF1AW1bwAM]Renegade Jewish Settlers Part 3/5 - YouTube[/ame] 

The teens in that video say a lot.  The irony is apparently to you they are the victims.  
The 21st century still has an issue that is going to go global built on folklore, multiple Reductio ad absurdums, and straw men.    


As far as the other video being posted before.  I posted in response to a generalized statement of Jesus being viewed as a prophet.  Yes, it has been posted before.  I have read the posts in this forum going back to 2003.  

You stated before I was bringing up old points.  After reading discussions since then, it has all been stated before.  Aside from a few current, yet repeated events you occasionally post (all from the same sources with obvious biases) and small intermittent number of others- the threads all end up relatively the same.  Some members appeared to have come and gone, but the arguments back then are mostly the same ones being had today.

Blessed Sacrament Parochial School kids being scrutinized. Huh? I don&#8217;t know.  Are you referencing a proposed national anti-sematic sentiment?  I have no idea what you&#8217;re talking about.  If I were the parent of one of those children and found out about it, that would be the last time they sang something like that.

How different is it for Jewish children to be taught fellow Arab children are asses of humanity.  Why does that get a pass from you?


----------



## toastman

Ronin said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was from my statement which I was wrong to say.  Would it be fair to say as a whole the view toward Jesus varies?   I was referring to my father's experience.  He converted to Judaism 15 years ago and in the process was told he had to denounce Christ.  Perhaps it was because he was a Christian at the time. IDK  I would get further details but we no longer communicate.
> 
> It seems there are a wide spectrum of views.  Prophet as you said, false prophet, charlatan, some who have converted from Judaism to Christianity, some who view him as irrelevant and insignificant, and everything in between.
> 
> This example seems to reflect a view stronger than just a prophet:
> We Killed Jesus, We're Proud Of It!.mp4 - YouTube
> 
> There are others showing where people of Jewish descent accepting Jesus as God.
> 
> I should have been specific to make a generalized statement that was incorrect to apply it the manner I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin, do you realize that this same video has been pulled up for years and years by anti-Semites as if these dunken kids really represented anything.  Now when I was a kid, I used to hear the kids coming hom from Blessed Sacrament Parochial School singing, "On Monday we go to school; on Tuesday we beat up the Jews."  Do you think that anyone would hold them up to public scrutiny likes these kids in the video have been held up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was diving in Sharm El Skeikh in 1990, and at the time was a devout Christian.  Even though not planned; I realized how close Israel was and decided go while the opportunity was there.  That is where I met Ron Wyatt. Wyatt Archaeological Research - Official Site of Ron Wyatt's Discoveries.
> It was also my first experience with Israelis.   They were tearing through his equipment (rightly so), but were otherwise professional and polite.  He invited me to go into the desert and look for what he said was the site of Aaron and his golden crown.   He introduced me to several Jewish people who were very kind and fun to be around.
> 
> My first glimpse of Palestinians reminded me of homeless beggars; who from what I was told- were invading troublemakers.  We never did find what he was looking for, but he invited me to assist him again several times over the next few years.  By the time I was in Israel the last visit I was no longer a Christian and had become a skeptic of Rons Work.
> 
> I also met several Coptic Arabs who were very kind.  There were rude and polite people on both sides.  In fact, I met some Israeli girls who were gorgeous (even with the automatic rifles slung around there backs).   Religion aside- people were people.  Individuals were and are unique.  It is completely idiotic to base judgment about an entire group of people on who God is to them.  Provided there is no infringement on others.
> 
> Personally, I think all organized religion is misguided and destructive to this world, but it doesnt mean I wish physical harm upon them.   With the exception of the Westboro Church lunatics (who I wouldnt mind if they went away), spirituality is a personal relationship people have with what they perceive is God.
> 
> Its the fellowships (large groups or sects) that affect political policy that have a history of being destructive.  I have Christian and Jewish friends.  We dont discuss God and get along great.  If I was constantly harassed about non conformity I would not like them.
> 
> Having been worshipped as a Catholic, and as a Christian (several sects of it), if I had to choose any religion to worship a god now it would be Judaism.  It doesnt teach that: - that Jesus was the son of God/Prophet, Trinity, the Virgin Birth of Mary, the Holy Spirit, Heaven and Hell, and proselytizing (which is a HUGE plus). The beliefs in God: are- God is one and unique, is incorporeal and has no shape/form/sex.  As far as organized religions go, it is the most appealing.  But religion or at least the ones present now dont go very far in terms of peace on this planet.  They never have.  All religions block the social evolution of the population.
> 
> I am not stating there are not anti-sematic members here.  I recently saw a post by someone with a very offensive cartoon referencing something awful about the Holocaust.  However you appear to use the term "anti-Semite" with anyone against what you see as being 100% Pro-Israel.
> 
> Neturei Karta and similar appear to be fringe in your eyes.  I could be wrong I dont want to put words in your mouth.   The bottom line is I dont have a hatred for Jewish People.  I disagree with SOME Jewish people. I disagree with the current administrations policy of allowing the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank.  I firmly disagree with what appears to be the settlement demeanor.
> 
> The is the apex of what I disagree with: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAF1AW1bwAM]Renegade Jewish Settlers Part 3/5 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The teens in that video say a lot.  The irony is apparently to you they are the victims.
> The 21st century still has an issue that is going to go global built on folklore, multiple Reductio ad absurdums, and straw men.
> 
> 
> As far as the other video being posted before.  I posted in response to a generalized statement of Jesus being viewed as a prophet.  Yes, it has been posted before.  I have read the posts in this forum going back to 2003.
> 
> You stated before I was bringing up old points.  After reading discussions since then, it has all been stated before.  Aside from a few current, yet repeated events you occasionally post (all from the same sources with obvious biases) and small intermittent number of others- the threads all end up relatively the same.  Some members appeared to have come and gone, but the arguments back then are mostly the same ones being had today.
> 
> Blessed Sacrament Parochial School kids being scrutinized. Huh? I dont know.  Are you referencing a proposed national anti-sematic sentiment?  I have no idea what youre talking about.  If I were the parent of one of those children and found out about it, that would be the last time they sang something like that.
> 
> How different is it for Jewish children to be taught fellow Arab children are asses of humanity.  Why does that get a pass from you?
Click to expand...


Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying


I used to date a jewish girl; man, was she a psycho in bed!


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as Israel had been recognised as a state in may 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine*, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warned you, Phoenall.
> 
> However Tinmore, doesn't it also say JORDANIAN-ISRAELI Agreement?  You can't just cherry-pick and choose words to your liking.
Click to expand...




 That is were he shoots himself in the foot every time, when he butchers the reports he is basing his whole stance on. Then he is shown to be falsifying evidence making his next move very suspect.

 He believes that the mention of the word Palestine proves that it means a nation, when in actual fact taken in its full context it means place


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is about as relevant as - and binding as - and as valuable as - a roll of Charmin, in our present age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
Click to expand...




 While removing all rights from the indigenous Jews for all time. The whole treaty has to be taken in its full context along with all the other treaties to show that the mandate had decided to partition the land and to give one small corner to the Jews. 95% of the mandate was given to the muslims as agreed and then the muslims wanted the last 5% AS WELL.  Try reading the Mcmahon letters that state the land to be given to the Jews that was agreed by Husseini


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> An excerpt on Palestine,  from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq  from 1919.
> 
> 
> 
> (3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. *For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.* The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase. In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting": "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery."* If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. - *
> 
> King-Crane Commission recommendations - Syria/Palestine and Iraq - Non-UN document (29 August 1919)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...





Yet the muslim leader in the area had already agreed that the Jews should get the small parcel of land that you call Palestine. The reasoning was to have the Jews all in one place and not scattered around the M.E. The land was considered worthless with no oil or minerals, and mostly desert. The indigenous people were to be given the option of becoming citizens of the new state or moving to another part of the M.E as full citizens.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
Click to expand...





 YOU LIE as nowhere does it state EUROPEAN ZIONISTS.   Now why do you bring up the islamonazi LIES all the time.


----------



## Phoenall

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
Click to expand...





 Maybe he can show that it was European Zionists that caused the genocide of the Jews in medina by Mohamed back in 632C.E.  Because that is when the problem started and the Jews were put on the hit list of all muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is relevant.  It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it.  It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for  the indigenous non-Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...
> 
> Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...
> 
> Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
Click to expand...



 Show were it says EUROPEAN Zionists, or are you being told to slip that in ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem.  Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
> You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
> By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
Click to expand...





So when are you going to read it and stop inserting the term European zionist


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine?  It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some  reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?
Click to expand...






Because they were all part of Palestine in 1919


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?
Click to expand...





 Do you want to try researching Palestine for the period 1919, just to see were it was and what it covered ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever they are"?  Don't play innocent.  Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't get the relationship.  This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Do you want to change the subject?
Click to expand...





 Actually this section is about EVERYTHING that impacts on Israel and palestine , which includes the civil wars going on around them.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already asked how the mind reading was accomplished; you didn't answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I explained that no mind reading was necessary, the report's authors spelled it out.  You do have to read the report though and you have to understand what you are reading.  It appears to me that all you are interested in is responding in what you think is a clever manner but it doesn't come out that way.  Take a deep breath, think it through and then respond.
Click to expand...




 Yes they spelt it out, and at no time did they mention European Zionism did they, so why did you bring it into the equation. Your biased stance is coming through like a beacon on a hill top, to you it is all about the JOOOOS and why they should be kicked out of the human race.


----------



## Billo_Really

montelatici said:


> And I explained that no mind reading was necessary, the report's authors spelled it out.  You do have to read the report though and you have to understand what you are reading.  It appears to me that all you are interested in is responding in what you think is a clever manner but it doesn't come out that way.  Take a deep breath, think it through and then respond.


He doesn't have the required grey matter to deal with complex issues.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, toastman, P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> He is trying to say that by using the phrase "southernmost tip of Palestine," means (literally) that "Palestine" was some sort of nation or state with a geographic boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by this Tinmore??
> 
> And what are you trying to tell us when you say that ISRAEL is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreement. What are you getting at? Please tell me
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As our friend "Phoenall" in Posting 1207, as well as others, _(and without regard to the much older single-commission opinion of King-Crane a half-century earlier)_ whatever you want to call the place holder "Palestine," in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.   It was a territory --- unable to stand on its own, totally dependent on the administrator government (either the UK or the UNPC) which were "entirely responsible --- both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."
> 
> There can be nothing plainer than this.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
Click to expand...





As the above shows they did not have the capability of self determination as the arab league had taken that away from them and put a governing body of foreign persons in place. That is why your words are so stupid and nonsensical, even you admit that the arab governing body was a foreign influence and made any declarations null and void. There was never a chance for the Palestinian arabs to show any self determination as they were under the control, and still are, of outside foreign influence.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME
> 
> For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
Click to expand...




 Yes in 1948 which they refused to implement due to outside foreign influence. 

 Correct but the palestinians tried to subvert an existing nation by claiming their land as well as territory allocated to them.

 It was not until 1988 that they declared a state without defined borders and a governing body so they still have no self determination


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got a link that their territory was defined ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.
> 
> Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestines territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
> ---------------------
> With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
> ---------------------
> The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypts autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.
> 
> The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...




All correct as it defines Palestine as the area left after the partition of the area formerly recognised as palesting into the nations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. So your claims of a Palestinian state prior to the date given have been destroyed by this link. It also shows that Palestine was not a nation just a place name, like Sinai and Negev


----------



## Phoenall

Ronin said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians do not realize that Jews consider Jesus Christ a charlatan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in this you are also wrong as the Jews view Christ as just another prophet, just not the messiah as prophesised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was from my statement which I was wrong to say.  Would it be fair to say as a whole the view toward Jesus varies?   I was referring to my father's experience.  He converted to Judaism 15 years ago and in the process was told he had to denounce Christ.  Perhaps it was because he was a Christian at the time. IDK  I would get further details but we no longer communicate.
> 
> It seems there are a wide spectrum of views.  Prophet as you said, false prophet, charlatan, some who have converted from Judaism to Christianity, some who view him as irrelevant and insignificant, and everything in between.
> 
> This example seems to reflect a view stronger than just a prophet:
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcZYdgIMhk]We Killed Jesus, We're Proud Of It!.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> There are others showing where people of Jewish descent accepting Jesus as God.
> 
> I should have been specific to make a generalized statement that was incorrect to apply it the manner I did.
Click to expand...




 The problem lies in the way Jesus took over as god in the Christian religion and supplanting the Jewish God in the process. Even though both religions had the same roots they branched in different direction. As in all occupied land the quislings will do anything to keep their power, so they grasped the opportunity to remove a dissenting voice. That was the cause of the hate for the whole of the Jewish race, a handful of brown noses who conspired to have Jesus killed. In the process they started a revolution that has spread around the world. It is only recently that both sides have met in the middle and made restitutions over a 2,000 year old act


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, there was a potential for the right to self-determination; both for the Jewish and the Arab were being guided in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.
> 
> A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians create a State?
> The many Arab League _(Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen)_ officially recognized "Palestine" as a state in 1988.  Oddly enough, Lebanon did not recognize Palestine until 2008.  Syria, conversely, officially recognized "Palestine" in 1967, and again in 2011.
> 
> There was an attempt to establish the "All Palestine Government" (APG) by the first Arab Higher Committee.  This attempted failed and the APG was annulled by the Egyptian Government which Occupied the Gaza Strip.  Jordan, which Occupied the West Bank, never recognized the APG and later annexed the West Bank.​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> 
> With the exception of these two events, when did the "Palestinians" exercise their right of self-determination _(other than to reject the Plan for an additional Arab State)_, and who knew about it?  _(Tell me they were not keeping it secret.) _
> 
> 
> What countries today, officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> What organizations or activities officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?
> 
> 
> If a Palestinian creates a state, and nobody knows about it, does it make a "state?"
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a state.
> 
> So, what is your point?
Click to expand...




 Being a state is a part of that self determination, you cant have one without the other. And they must follow on each others heels.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh, I thought that was exactly the question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.
> 
> The right to self determination does not require a state.
> 
> So, what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, are your saying that the Palestinians did not want a State or Nation until 1988?   That the whole question is irrelevant!  (WOW!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you know, the Palestinians called on Britain to create an independent, democratic state as required in the LoN Covenant.
> 
> After two and a half decades, there was still no elected government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What is the question?
> 
> I thought the allegation was that:
> 
> 
> The Jewish invaded a Palestinian Country.
> That the Jewish stole their Country and currently occupy all of the territory.
> That the Jewish denied the Palestinian the right to self-determination.
> 
> 
> Or did I get it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was always the Zionist's stated goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 The British went one better and created 3 states 2 muslim and 1 Jewish as agreed by the LoN


There was no Palestinian country for the Jews to invade, and the Jews had as much right to the land as anyone.

There was no country to steal as the muslims gave it up

The muslims still have the right to self determination, they just have to exercise it.


And the arabs stated goal is to destroy Israel and mass murder all the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying
> 
> 
> 
> I used to date a jewish girl; man, was she a psycho in bed!
Click to expand...




 That was your excess weight knocking the breath out of her body, cant of been very pleasant to have a walrus flopping around sweating like there was no tomorrow.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> That was your excess weight knocking the breath out of her body, cant of been very pleasant to have a walrus flopping around sweating like there was no tomorrow.


That was back when I was playing basketball 3 times a week.

No excess weight during that period.


----------



## Ronin

toastman said:


> Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying








Lying? For what.  I don&#8217;t intend to change any minds here.  I may post something I am incorrect about but think is valid.  In which case I&#8217;ll admit and mark it as having learned something.  I have no reason to ever lie.

As far as what you are referring to: I&#8217;m basing it on observation.  The over treatment the fellow indigenous population.  

Secondly, is the foundation of Judaism based on the Old Testament? Are some if not most Israelis taught the Old Testament in a literal sense.  &#8220;This Land is Mine, God Gave it to Me&#8221; because it says so right here. 
Does the story of &#8220;God&#8221; suggesting Sarah&#8217;s maid go get knocked up from her husband only to have a change of heart and allow her to get knocked up set the stage for the justifying why it&#8217;s OK to take land?

I&#8217;ve read the Bible but do not claim to be an expert.  Therefore I could be wrong but I was under the impression this passage was referring to Ishmael.

Genesis 16:12
"He will be a wild donkey of an ass, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
I have heard in the past that was a mistranslation.  Every Bible I have viewed this story in has the translation as donkey or ass- not fruitful.

Children in Israel are taught the Genesis aren&#8217;t they?   1+1=2?


----------



## SAYIT

Ronin said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying? For what.  I dont intend to change any minds here.  I may post something I am incorrect about but think is valid.  In which case Ill admit and mark it as having learned something.  I have no reason to ever lie.
> 
> As far as what you are referring to: Im basing it on observation.  The over treatment the fellow indigenous population.
> 
> Secondly, is the foundation of Judaism based on the Old Testament? Are some if not most Israelis taught the Old Testament in a literal sense.  This Land is Mine, God Gave it to Me because it says so right here.
> Does the story of God suggesting Sarahs maid go get knocked up from her husband only to have a change of heart and allow her to get knocked up set the stage for the justifying why its OK to take land?
> 
> Ive read the Bible but do not claim to be an expert.  Therefore I could be wrong but I was under the impression this passage was referring to Ishmael.
> 
> Genesis 16:12
> "He will be a wild donkey of an ass, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
> I have heard in the past that was a mistranslation.  Every Bible I have viewed this story in has the translation as donkey or ass- not fruitful.
> 
> Children in Israel are taught the Genesis arent they?   1+1=2?
Click to expand...


So if Jews are reading that literally as you suggest, Ishmael was a real jackass of a guy. Plenty of you right here on this board. Nowhere does it say Arabs will be donkeys as you suggest. I'd say you're just selling your personal hate for Joooos, Bubba.


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

I'm completely lost!

v/r
R


----------



## Ronin

SAYIT said:


> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying? For what.  I dont intend to change any minds here.  I may post something I am incorrect about but think is valid.  In which case Ill admit and mark it as having learned something.  I have no reason to ever lie.
> 
> As far as what you are referring to: Im basing it on observation.  The over treatment the fellow indigenous population.
> 
> Secondly, is the foundation of Judaism based on the Old Testament? Are some if not most Israelis taught the Old Testament in a literal sense.  This Land is Mine, God Gave it to Me because it says so right here.
> Does the story of God suggesting Sarahs maid go get knocked up from her husband only to have a change of heart and allow her to get knocked up set the stage for the justifying why its OK to take land?
> 
> Ive read the Bible but do not claim to be an expert.  Therefore I could be wrong but I was under the impression this passage was referring to Ishmael.
> 
> Genesis 16:12
> "He will be a wild donkey of an ass, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
> I have heard in the past that was a mistranslation.  Every Bible I have viewed this story in has the translation as donkey or ass- not fruitful.
> 
> Children in Israel are taught the Genesis arent they?   1+1=2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if Jews are reading that literally as you suggest, Ishmael was a real jackass of a guy. Plenty of you right here on this board. Nowhere does it say Arabs will be donkeys as you suggest. I'd say you're just selling your personal hate for Joooos, Bubba.
Click to expand...


SAYIT has spoken. So let it written, so let it be done.  The point you are making could fall under the very fallacy you think your pointing out.  Aside from my own interpretation any person I have ever discussed this with agrees Ismael symbolizing the "father of All Arabs" also symbolizes the strife his descendants will have.  The context seems to suggest that as well.  Personally, I think the whole story is bullshit.  Personal hate for what?  What the fuck is or who is Joooos?
Would have been better to say the story of blah blah teaches blah blah instead of the children of Israel.  

OK I retract that statement.  In Israel nothing but goodwill upon fellow man and love thy neighbor is being taught.   Worldwide the Old Testament (folklore) suggests less than favorable conditions to arabs.  -Magoo


----------



## IlarMeilyr

No Bowling!


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> I'm completely lost!
> 
> v/r
> R



You know Rocco, the Caption and your avatar finally match...You keep arguing legalities when the issue for humanity is Morality. LOL


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,

Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.



pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> I'm completely lost!
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Rocco, the Caption and your avatar finally match...You keep arguing legalities when the issue for humanity is Morality. LOL
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.

By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> I'm completely lost!
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Rocco, the Caption and your avatar finally match...You keep arguing legalities when the issue for humanity is Morality. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Rocco, the Caption and your avatar finally match...You keep arguing legalities when the issue for humanity is Morality. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
Click to expand...


LOL at the Nazi comparison. How incredibly pathetic of you


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> "..._Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed. You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different_."


Listen up, New Meat... Rocco manifests as righteous and open-minded... more objective than 99.99% of Palestinian-Muslim apologist butt-monkeys here... especially the new ones.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Rocco, the Caption and your avatar finally match...You keep arguing legalities when the issue for humanity is Morality. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
Click to expand...


You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.
Click to expand...


Defending their country lol!

Can you give me a couple of specific instances of Palestinians defending their 'country'


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending their country lol!
> 
> Can you give me a couple of specific instances of Palestinians defending their 'country'
Click to expand...


According to Tinmore:  Munich 1972, Entebbe, pushing a wheelchair-bound man into the sea, etc.


----------



## toastman

Suicide bombings


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending their country lol!
> 
> Can you give me a couple of specific instances of Palestinians defending their 'country'
Click to expand...


Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending their country lol!
> 
> Can you give me a couple of specific instances of Palestinians defending their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!
Click to expand...


Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending their country lol!
> 
> Can you give me a couple of specific instances of Palestinians defending their 'country'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
Click to expand...


If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

Wow, where did this come from?



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Rocco, the Caption and your avatar finally match...You keep arguing legalities when the issue for humanity is Morality. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*


I oppose the 1948 Arab Palestinian oath of Genocide against the Jewish People, so I'm a Nazi?

I oppose the claim that the Arab Palestine has the right to deny the right of self-determination of the Jewish People, so I'm a Nazi?

I oppose the right of the Arab Palestinian in pursuit of virtual conflict, so I'm a Nazi?

I oppose the HAMAS call to Jihad, and the Fedayeen thirst for arm struggle, so I'm a Nazi?

I oppose terrorism in all its forms, to include the Arab Palestinian past history of massacres, piracy, hijackings, suicide bombings, armed attacks against civilian targets, and indiscriminate use of rocket fire across international demarcation lines, so I'm a Nazi?

I oppose the Palestinian entitlement To Attack Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  and so, I'm the Nazi?
If what I believe (according to our friend "montelatici") are what it means to be a Nazi, then I'm guilty!   I supporting the peaceful resolution, and so I must be a Nazi? 

I support the ideals that:


Arab Palestinians shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, which the Palestinians have demonstrated they do not.

The Arab Palestinian must settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, which the Palestinians have demonstrated they do not.

The Arab Palestinians have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression, including that directed at the State of Israel.
Yes, I must certainly sound like a "old Nazi" as our friend "montelatici" implies.  All these things are morally reprehensible and I should be drawn and quartered.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
Click to expand...


Suicide bombs in cafes and restaurants and clubs is defending your country?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suicide bombs in cafes and restaurants and clubs is defending your country?
Click to expand...


Again, Sharon was a man of violence and he was probably happy with that horrible act because it pushed his agenda of oppressing the Palestinians...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suicide bombs in cafes and restaurants and clubs is defending your country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Sharon was a man of violence and he was probably happy with that horrible act because it pushed his agenda of oppressing the Palestinians...
Click to expand...


Again, you didn't answer my question.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suicide bombs in cafes and restaurants and clubs is defending your country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Sharon was a man of violence and he was probably happy with that horrible act because it pushed his agenda of oppressing the Palestinians...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


I clearly called it a horrible act...but this type of atrocity is common in occupied areas since time immemorial...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Sharon was a man of violence and he was probably happy with that horrible act because it pushed his agenda of oppressing the Palestinians...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I clearly called it a horrible act...but this type of atrocity is common in occupied areas since time immemorial...
Click to expand...


The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
Click to expand...

Pity he didn't bulldoze it down... it's an out-of-place eyesore anyway.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly called it a horrible act...but this type of atrocity is common in occupied areas since time immemorial...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied
Click to expand...


they were fighting the occupiers and frankly they were wrong because world opinion turned against them...As you can clearly see, Abbas has turned public opinion against Israel with peaceful resistance.

Bravo!


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pity he didn't bulldoze it down... it's an out-of-place eyesore anyway.
Click to expand...


Kondor, you're beginning to sound like an insane asylum escapee.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> 
> 
> Pity he didn't bulldoze it down... it's an out-of-place eyesore anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Konder, you're beginning to sound like an insane asylum escapee.
Click to expand...

Nahhhh... just someone who enjoys pissing off Palestinians and their fifth-columnist sympathizer types, in matters concerning Israel...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity he didn't bulldoze it down... it's an out-of-place eyesore anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konder, you're beginning to sound like an insane asylum escapee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nahhhh... just someone who enjoys pissing off Palestinians and their fifth-columnist sympathizer types, in matters concerning Israel...
Click to expand...


You're not pissing anybody off, you're making your-self irrelevant with your "kill'em all and push'em out nuttiness.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied



You bring up an interesting point.

The Palestinians would be wise to keep their war against Occupation within the lands that are Occupied.  This means only targeting Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank.

Targeting Israel civilians within Israel is an error.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Konder, you're beginning to sound like an insane asylum escapee.
> 
> 
> 
> Nahhhh... just someone who enjoys pissing off Palestinians and their fifth-columnist sympathizer types, in matters concerning Israel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not pissing anybody off, you're making your-self irrelevant with your "kill'em all and push'em out nuttiness.
Click to expand...

I don't advocate killing them.

I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.

I advocate what has been underway for 66 years and what is now moving into the end-game.

As to pissing-off Palestinians and their sympathizers, well... there are a variety of folks hereabouts who will tell you that I excel at pissing them off... for better or worse.

Merely helping and doing my little part in counterpointing the incessant Palestinian and Muslim propaganda around here.

As to advocacy for expulsion being 'nutty', well... one merely needs to look at any of several Palestinian propaganda maps of shrinking Palestinian lands, to discern what is 'nutty' and what is the Real World.

The Palestinians own maps prove my point.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> I don't advocate killing them.
> 
> I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.
> 
> I advocate what has been underway for 66 years and what is now moving into the end-game.
> 
> As to pissing-off Palestinians and their sympathizers, well... there are a variety of folks hereabouts who will tell you that I excel at pissing them off... for better or worse.
> 
> Merely helping and doing my little part in counterpointing the incessant Palestinian and Muslim propaganda around here.
> 
> As to advocacy for expulsion being 'nutty', well... one merely needs to look at any of several Palestinian propaganda maps of shrinking Palestinian lands, to discern what is 'nutty' and what is the Real World.
> 
> The Palestinians own maps prove my point.



Thank you for openly expressing you interest in committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.

Its rare for Israelis to be so open about their true intentions.  

This whole issue would be a lot easier if more Israelis were as honest about their goals as you are.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nahhhh... just someone who enjoys pissing off Palestinians and their fifth-columnist sympathizer types, in matters concerning Israel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not pissing anybody off, you're making your-self irrelevant with your "kill'em all and push'em out nuttiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't advocate killing them.
> 
> _I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure._
> I advocate what has been underway for 66 years and what is now moving into the end-game.
> 
> As to pissing-off Palestinians and their sympathizers, well... there are a variety of folks hereabouts who will tell you that I excel at pissing them off... for better or worse.
> 
> Merely helping and doing my little part in counterpointing the incessant Palestinian and Muslim propaganda around here.
> 
> As to advocacy for expulsion being 'nutty', well... one merely needs to look at any of several Palestinian propaganda maps of shrinking Palestinian lands, to discern what is 'nutty' and what is the Real World.
> 
> The Palestinians own maps prove my point.
Click to expand...


Well said: committed.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't advocate killing them.
> 
> I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.
> 
> I advocate what has been underway for 66 years and what is now moving into the end-game.
> 
> As to pissing-off Palestinians and their sympathizers, well... there are a variety of folks hereabouts who will tell you that I excel at pissing them off... for better or worse.
> 
> Merely helping and doing my little part in counterpointing the incessant Palestinian and Muslim propaganda around here.
> 
> As to advocacy for expulsion being 'nutty', well... one merely needs to look at any of several Palestinian propaganda maps of shrinking Palestinian lands, to discern what is 'nutty' and what is the Real World.
> 
> The Palestinians own maps prove my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for openly expressing you interest in committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
> 
> Its rare for Israelis to be so open about their true intentions.
> 
> This whole issue would be a lot easier if more Israelis were as honest about their goals as you are.
Click to expand...


When Jacob's son Joseph displaced all the inhabitants of Egypt, Pharoah, who became immensely wealthy thereby, didn't seem to mind so much.
When the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans displaced millions of Jews from the Holy Land, your ancestors weren't bitching about it too much.

When Jews displace Islamic sheeple, who allow murderous tyrants to run their shop,  blame the sheeple.

The overwhelming number of Jews don't like grenades blowing up in their faces.

Yawn!!!


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up an interesting point.
> 
> The Palestinians would be wise to keep their war against Occupation within the lands that are Occupied.  This means only targeting Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank.
> 
> Targeting Israel civilians within Israel is an error.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail. 
So, was it worth it ?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail.
> So, was it worth it ?



Occupied people have a right to resist occupation.

But they should choose the right targets.  

Only targeting soldiers and settlers in the West Bank would show what a burden they are to regular Israelis.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail.
> So, was it worth it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied people have a right to resist occupation.
> 
> But they should choose the right targets.
> 
> Only targeting soldiers and settlers in the West Bank would show what a burden they are to regular Israelis.
Click to expand...


And that's why Egyptians are killing Egyptians.
And that's why Syrians are killing Syrians.
And that's why Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

Because the whole darn region is occupied by the X-Men Jews.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> And that's why Egyptians are killing Egyptians.
> And that's why Syrians are killing Syrians.
> And that's why Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
> 
> Because the whole darn region is occupied by the X-Men Jews.



How does this have anything to do with what I said?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail.
> So, was it worth it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied people have a right to resist occupation.
> 
> But they should choose the right targets.
> 
> Only targeting soldiers and settlers in the West Bank would show what a burden they are to regular Israelis.
Click to expand...


The citizens of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (i.e. civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.


----------



## Victory67

P F Tinmore said:


> The citizens of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (i.e. civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.



The 4th Geneva Conventions only deals with Occupied Territories.  

Not sovereign states.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why Egyptians are killing Egyptians.
> And that's why Syrians are killing Syrians.
> And that's why Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
> 
> Because the whole darn region is occupied by the X-Men Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does this have anything to do with what I said?
Click to expand...


Do me a favor...Don't be stupid.
Context...OK?
We are dealing with 1.2 billion people who can't seem to refrain from killing their own co-religionists because they're wearing different colored underwear.
So the Joos have to be the nice guys, right?
I don't think so.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Do me a favor...Don't be stupid.
> Context...OK?
> We are dealing with 1.2 billion people who can't seem to refrain from killing their own co-religionists because they're wearing different colored underwear.
> So the Joos have to be the nice guys, right?
> I don't think so.



Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions.

They are bound by them.  Respect for laws that one has committed to follow is the hallmark of a Western democracy.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do me a favor...Don't be stupid.
> Context...OK?
> We are dealing with 1.2 billion people who can't seem to refrain from killing their own co-religionists because they're wearing different colored underwear.
> So the Joos have to be the nice guys, right?
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions.
> 
> They are bound by them.  Respect for laws that one has committed to follow is the hallmark of a Western democracy.
Click to expand...


You know, you're right.
Damn Israel.

Here's my compromise...
[1] You and every person on planet earth that expresses your opinion gets to have an explosive device strapped to your wrist.
[2] Israel complies with the agreement.
[3] As soon as a terrorist attacks occurs, your device gives you a one hour notice to distance yourself from other people.
[4] At the end of that hour, the device explodes, killing you.

Game?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> You know, you're right.
> Damn Israel.
> 
> Here's my compromise...
> [1] You and every person on planet earth that expresses your opinion gets to have an explosive device strapped to your wrist.
> [2] Israel complies with the agreement.
> [3] As soon as a terrorist attacks occurs, your device gives you a one hour notice to distance yourself from other people.
> [4] At the end of that hour, the device explodes, killing you.
> 
> Game?



Sounds like you find it difficult to tolerate my views.

Sorry, but your fantasies of deadly violence upon me won't stop me from discussing and stating the truth.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you're right.
> Damn Israel.
> 
> Here's my compromise...
> [1] You and every person on planet earth that expresses your opinion gets to have an explosive device strapped to your wrist.
> [2] Israel complies with the agreement.
> [3] As soon as a terrorist attacks occurs, your device gives you a one hour notice to distance yourself from other people.
> [4] At the end of that hour, the device explodes, killing you.
> 
> Game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you find it difficult to tolerate my views.
> 
> Sorry, but your fantasies of deadly violence upon me won't stop me from discussing and stating the truth.
Click to expand...


You spit out double standards for Jews.
And you're a pussy to boot.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> You spit out double standards for Jews.
> And you're a pussy to boot.



I expect all nations that have signed the 4th Geneva Conventions to abide by them.  Its only common sense.

Its not my fault that you believe Israel should get a pass on complying with international laws that they have committed to follow.

As for your insult, its a common tactic by those who are backed into a wall by information they cannot handle.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You spit out double standards for Jews.
> And you're a pussy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect all nations that have signed the 4th Geneva Conventions to abide by them.  Its only common sense.
> 
> Its not my fault that you believe Israel should get a pass on complying with international laws that they have committed to follow.
Click to expand...


And under what conditions is Israel exempt from specific agreements?
And have those conditions ever occurred?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> And under what conditions is Israel exempt from specific agreements?
> And have those conditions ever occurred?



That's a question you are fully able to answer yourself.

According to international law, when are nations allowed to violate those international laws and treaties that they have chosen to sign and commit to?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And under what conditions is Israel exempt from specific agreements?
> And have those conditions ever occurred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a question you are fully able to answer yourself.
> 
> According to international law, when our nations allowed to violate those international laws and treaties that they have chosen to sign and commit to?
Click to expand...


The wars initiated by Israel's neighbors have much pretty settled that.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> The wars initiated by Israel's neighbors have much pretty settled that.



Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.

The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.

If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was your excess weight knocking the breath out of her body, cant of been very pleasant to have a walrus flopping around sweating like there was no tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> That was back when I was playing basketball 3 times a week.
> 
> No excess weight during that period.
Click to expand...




 Shooting hoops with your hommies, and being told white men cant jump. Then going for some recreation


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.
Click to expand...




 While you think Israel defending their country is breaches of International law and against the UN charter.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Rocco. He thinks that the Palestinians defending their country is aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending their country lol!
> 
> Can you give me a couple of specific instances of Palestinians defending their 'country'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!
Click to expand...





 Then why is he refusing to talk peace, and demanding pre conditions first. If he was serious about peace he would ask for dialogue and put his cards on the table. But all he wants to do is pull the wool over peoples eyes about the real reasons he is refusing peace. And you have been suckered into believing him. Very soon your Palestine state will consist of gaza and a little piece of desert


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance to an occupation is noble even if futile...However Abbas has a more portent weapon that has resulted in UN recognition of a Palestinian State: Peace!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
Click to expand...





 And the muslims didn't want the violence they instigated against the Jews back in the 7C when Mohamed mass murdered a whole tribe for refusing to lay down and worship him


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Wow, where did this come from?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,
> 
> Everyone has to appreciate those moments when you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that Arab-Palestinian has a set of morals that can be discussed.  I tried that once and got no where.
> 
> By the way --- thanks for the laugh --- it was a good one!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Germans that used to say Jews had morals that couldn't be discussed.   You sound surprisingly like those old Nazis Rocco, only your target is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> I oppose the 1948 Arab Palestinian oath of Genocide against the Jewish People, so I'm a Nazi?
> 
> I oppose the claim that the Arab Palestine has the right to deny the right of self-determination of the Jewish People, so I'm a Nazi?
> 
> I oppose the right of the Arab Palestinian in pursuit of virtual conflict, so I'm a Nazi?
> 
> I oppose the HAMAS call to Jihad, and the Fedayeen thirst for arm struggle, so I'm a Nazi?
> 
> I oppose terrorism in all its forms, to include the Arab Palestinian past history of massacres, piracy, hijackings, suicide bombings, armed attacks against civilian targets, and indiscriminate use of rocket fire across international demarcation lines, so I'm a Nazi?
> 
> I oppose the Palestinian entitlement To Attack Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  and so, I'm the Nazi?
> If what I believe (according to our friend "montelatici") are what it means to be a Nazi, then I'm guilty!   I supporting the peaceful resolution, and so I must be a Nazi?
> 
> I support the ideals that:
> 
> 
> Arab Palestinians shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel, which the Palestinians have demonstrated they do not.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian must settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, which the Palestinians have demonstrated they do not.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression, including that directed at the State of Israel.
> Yes, I must certainly sound like a "old Nazi" as our friend "montelatici" implies.  All these things are morally reprehensible and I should be drawn and quartered.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



 It certainly seems that the NEO NAZIS are not slow in claiming that those who support an unbiased view of the conflict are the Nazi's.   If so then count me in as a PROUD NAZI for defending the right to freedom and safety  from islamonazi oppression and attack.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you consider the second intifada to be defending their country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suicide bombs in cafes and restaurants and clubs is defending your country?
Click to expand...




 Don't forget that smashing childrens heads in with rocks is also defending your country if you are pro islamonazi


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suicide bombs in cafes and restaurants and clubs is defending your country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Sharon was a man of violence and he was probably happy with that horrible act because it pushed his agenda of oppressing the Palestinians...
Click to expand...




 So explain the violence and atrocities carried out by your Palestinian friends towards the Jews since the 7C. Why is it still going on today and why have you ignored the many millions of deaths at the hands of your Palestinian friends. What violence had the children done to the Palestinians to deserve being targeted by islamonazi terrorist shit


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly called it a horrible act...but this type of atrocity is common in occupied areas since time immemorial...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were fighting the occupiers and frankly they were wrong because world opinion turned against them...As you can clearly see, Abbas has turned public opinion against Israel with peaceful resistance.
> 
> Bravo!
Click to expand...




 So constant rocket attacks is now peaceful resistance. This must mean that Israeli repercussions are peaceful resistance to terrorism then.


----------



## Geaux4it

I will bow for them as I'm pulling the pin

-Geaux


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Sharon had not insulted their religion and dignity by bulldozing his way to their Holy Mosque, I would have said no, but Sharon wanted that violence, it was his way...
> 
> 
> 
> Pity he didn't bulldoze it down... it's an out-of-place eyesore anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kondor, you're beginning to sound like an insane asylum escapee.
Click to expand...




 In 1967 the muslims thought that the Israelis would tear down the carbuncle and evict all muslims from the Temple Mount, which is what they would have done in their place. So it seems that you are a war monger and just want to stir up more and more bloodshed and violence for the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Konder, you're beginning to sound like an insane asylum escapee.
> 
> 
> 
> Nahhhh... just someone who enjoys pissing off Palestinians and their fifth-columnist sympathizer types, in matters concerning Israel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not pissing anybody off, you're making your-self irrelevant with your "kill'em all and push'em out nuttiness.
Click to expand...




 Isn't that the Palestinian way of achieving peace supported by the likes of you. Isn't this written into their charter and cant be rescinded because they can never get a quorum to do so.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up an interesting point.
> 
> The Palestinians would be wise to keep their war against Occupation within the lands that are Occupied.  This means only targeting Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank.
> 
> Targeting Israel civilians within Israel is an error.
Click to expand...




 Targeting Israeli civilians anywhere is terrorism and means the Palestinians are signing their own death warrants. The only solution is to force abbas to the peace table and to thrash out a mutually recognised deal. Then if the Palestinians renege on the deal they will face censure in the UN and on the ground. Then there will be no doubt in anyones minds that the Palestinians are the aggressors.

You are very fond of the Geneva conventions, look up what they say about the Palestinians killing Jewish civilians in Palestine, and then come back with the result. I do believe that it is a war crime and a crime against humanity that could result in a drum head execution of the culprits.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Shooting hoops with your hommies, and being told white men cant jump.


But we could play defense and I had a shot nobody could stop. I was a streak shooter and could fill it up in a hurry.  Sometimes I'd get so hot, guys on the other team would start screaming, _*"He's got the ball!  He's got the ball!"*_

Me and my basketball buddy used to play at a park that went from all surfer, to all black.  We wound up being the only two white guys that came down to that park.  But to us, we were just doing what we normally did 3 times a week.  And we were there during the entire transition period.  So we knew everybody that showed up on a regular basis.  And they knew us. There would be a game going on and a dozen black guys standing around at one end, then we would come walking up asking, _*"Who's got next?"  *_And they'd go, _*"Here comes trouble!"*_  Because we played to win.  And if you beat us, we made sure you earned it!



Phoenall said:


> Then going for some recreation


Doing her was like surviving an Iron Man contest. It was marathon sex and being a guy, I couldn't back down whenever she wanted it.

She took me to a Sadre once and her family got all pissed off when I drank too much of their ceremonial wine.  They were bitching they couldn't finish because they had no more wine left, so we left early and went back to my place and fucked our brains out.

Why are all the psycho-bitches the best in bed?


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The suicide bombings took place is areas like Tel - Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Eilat. Those areas are not occupied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up an interesting point.
> 
> The Palestinians would be wise to keep their war against Occupation within the lands that are Occupied.  This means only targeting Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank.
> 
> Targeting Israel civilians within Israel is an error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail.
> So, was it worth it ?
Click to expand...




 They should be executed and their remains cut into small pieces and scattered to the four winds. That way they will never get to paradise


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail.
> So, was it worth it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied people have a right to resist occupation.
> 
> But they should choose the right targets.
> 
> Only targeting soldiers and settlers in the West Bank would show what a burden they are to regular Israelis.
Click to expand...




 Why do you advocate mass murder of children in your plan to eliminate the muslims from the M.E. That is against International Law and the Geneva conventions, and is seen as incitement to violence and genocide.
 DOUBLE STANDARDS AND HYPOCRISY MUCH ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why Egyptians are killing Egyptians.
> And that's why Syrians are killing Syrians.
> And that's why Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
> 
> Because the whole darn region is occupied by the X-Men Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does this have anything to do with what I said?
Click to expand...




 Think about it, if Israel capitulates today what will be the reason for the mass murders by the Palestinians. What will they blame for the rocket attacks, and how will you defend their murdering of Jewish children. At the moment you have your excuse, take it away and you have nothing. Will you still defend islamonazi terrorist murders of Jewish children living on Jewish owned land in Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who they target because at the end of the day, Israel will find the culprits and put them in jail. Recently, a soldier and two civilians were killed in the West Bank in separate incidents. Those responsible were apprehended and will now spend the rest of their life in jail.
> So, was it worth it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied people have a right to resist occupation.
> 
> But they should choose the right targets.
> 
> Only targeting soldiers and settlers in the West Bank would show what a burden they are to regular Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The citizens of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (i.e. civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...





 Try again sunshine, and call up the full Geneva Convention that deals with this. While you are at it refer to the right of return that applies equally to the Jews as much as to the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (i.e. civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4th Geneva Conventions only deals with Occupied Territories.
> 
> Not sovereign states.
Click to expand...




 And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do me a favor...Don't be stupid.
> Context...OK?
> We are dealing with 1.2 billion people who can't seem to refrain from killing their own co-religionists because they're wearing different colored underwear.
> So the Joos have to be the nice guys, right?
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions.
> 
> They are bound by them.  Respect for laws that one has committed to follow is the hallmark of a Western democracy.
Click to expand...





 And they follow them to the letter if you bother to check what they say, they have occupied the land and have clearly stated that at the end of peace talks that have a mutually agreed outcome they will return the lands to their legal owners. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THEY WILL OCCUPY THE LAND AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE AS LAID DOWN IN THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you're right.
> Damn Israel.
> 
> Here's my compromise...
> [1] You and every person on planet earth that expresses your opinion gets to have an explosive device strapped to your wrist.
> [2] Israel complies with the agreement.
> [3] As soon as a terrorist attacks occurs, your device gives you a one hour notice to distance yourself from other people.
> [4] At the end of that hour, the device explodes, killing you.
> 
> Game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you find it difficult to tolerate my views.
> 
> Sorry, but your fantasies of deadly violence upon me won't stop me from discussing and stating the truth.
Click to expand...




 Not even when the very people you are trying to defend turn around and show that they are just mindless murdering bastards, and don't give a shit about your defence of their cause.

 It is you that has the problem tolerating other peoples views because you are stuck in JEW HATE mode.

 Now this truth you want to discuss, how about we start with reality and work up from there. You start by looking at the commands in the Koran regarding Jews ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You spit out double standards for Jews.
> And you're a pussy to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect all nations that have signed the 4th Geneva Conventions to abide by them.  Its only common sense.
> 
> Its not my fault that you believe Israel should get a pass on complying with international laws that they have committed to follow.
> 
> As for your insult, its a common tactic by those who are backed into a wall by information they cannot handle.
Click to expand...


*Only your opinion and that of your islamonazi masters that this is the case*


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And under what conditions is Israel exempt from specific agreements?
> And have those conditions ever occurred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a question you are fully able to answer yourself.
> 
> According to international law, when are nations allowed to violate those international laws and treaties that they have chosen to sign and commit to?
Click to expand...




 So this gives the Palestinians the right to ignore the International laws and the Geneva conventions because they have not singed them. Making them the ones that have the get out of jail card. And you expect Israel to roll over and die because of this.

 According to International law Israel is in full compliance because the Palestinians have refused to sing up. They know that once they sign a peace deal they will be forced into complying with International law and they will be seen as the aggressors. And you wont have a leg to stand on regarding your JEW HATRED.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wars initiated by Israel's neighbors have much pretty settled that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.
> 
> The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.
> 
> If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.
Click to expand...





And become just like your friends the islamonazi's, then you would have no reason to spew out your JEW HATRED and would have to find another outlet for your hate.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wars initiated by Israel's neighbors have much pretty settled that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.
> 
> The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.
> 
> If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And become just like your friends the islamonazi's, then you would have no reason to spew out your JEW HATRED and would have to find another outlet for your hate.
Click to expand...


I still want to see the certification papers of your sanity. It is your hate for the Goy that consumes you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied people have a right to resist occupation.
> 
> But they should choose the right targets.
> 
> Only targeting soldiers and settlers in the West Bank would show what a burden they are to regular Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (i.e. civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again sunshine, and call up the full Geneva Convention that deals with this. While you are at it refer to the right of return that applies equally to the Jews as much as to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


I have. There are some differences in dealing with occupations than regular wars.

I have always supported the right of return for everybody. That is the law.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.
> 
> The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.
> 
> If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And become just like your friends the islamonazi's, then you would have no reason to spew out your JEW HATRED and would have to find another outlet for your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still want to see the certification papers of your sanity. It is your hate for the Goy that consumes you.
Click to expand...





HA HA very funny now back to reality and the role played in the conflict by the Koran. The muslims are violent mass murderers who have it as a direct command of their GODS that the Jews must be wiped out and this has been the case for over 1400 years. When you can prove that Israel is in breach of any International laws or the Geneva convention then take your case to the Hague and have them issue arrest warrants for crimes against humanity. Your Palestinian islamonazi friends have failed to do this many times because they did not have the evidence needed by International law.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (i.e. civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again sunshine, and call up the full Geneva Convention that deals with this. While you are at it refer to the right of return that applies equally to the Jews as much as to the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. There are some differences in dealing with occupations than regular wars.
> 
> I have always supported the right of return for everybody. That is the law.
Click to expand...





 Can you remember who is classed as protected persons, will this remind you of what the Palestinians cant do to Jews in Palestine.

 Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War[edit]

Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the *whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion,* and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.


Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. *But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention *

 So in this case the Geneva conventions do not apply as Palestine has not been bound by it.   You lose again to truth and reality.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again sunshine, and call up the full Geneva Convention that deals with this. While you are at it refer to the right of return that applies equally to the Jews as much as to the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. There are some differences in dealing with occupations than regular wars.
> 
> I have always supported the right of return for everybody. That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you remember who is classed as protected persons, will this remind you of what the Palestinians cant do to Jews in Palestine.
> 
> Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War[edit]
> 
> Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the *whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion,* and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.
> 
> 
> Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. *But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention *
> 
> So in this case the Geneva conventions do not apply as Palestine has not been bound by it.   You lose again to truth and reality.
Click to expand...


So the Palestinians are not bound by the Geneva Convention?

Cool, a no law zone.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.


 
You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> And they follow them to the letter if you bother to check what they say, they have occupied the land and have clearly stated that at the end of peace talks that have a mutually agreed outcome they will return the lands to their legal owners. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THEY WILL OCCUPY THE LAND AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE AS LAID DOWN IN THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.



Civilian housing do not count as military installations.

The Occupying Power only has the right to confiscate private land to install bases and other military infrastructure.  Housing got families and children do not count as military bases or military infrastructure.

The only settlements that are legal are those that were built on legally purchased land and those are few and far between.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Not even when the very people you are trying to defend turn around and show that they are just mindless murdering bastards, and don't give a shit about your defence of their cause.
> 
> It is you that has the problem tolerating other peoples views because you are stuck in JEW HATE mode.
> 
> Now this truth you want to discuss, how about we start with reality and work up from there. You start by looking at the commands in the Koran regarding Jews ?



Why do Israelis accuse people of hating Jews when they express views that they disagree with?

Such an attitude is one of the reasons why many folks don't take Israel's side in the Israel Palestine conflict.


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wars initiated by Israel's neighbors have much pretty settled that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.
> 
> The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.
> 
> If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And become just like your friends the islamonazi's, then you would have no reason to spew out your JEW HATRED and would have to find another outlet for your hate.
Click to expand...


Phoenall calm down . Pbel and Tinmore don't hate Jews.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
Click to expand...


"But most settlements are not built on such land".  A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land.  So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But most settlements are not built on such land".  A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land.  So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.
Click to expand...


True, they are built on Palestinian state land.


----------



## Victory67

ForeverYoung436 said:


> "But most settlements are not built on such land".  A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land.  So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.



Yes, most settlements are not built on private land.

But most of the main settlements like Ariel and Maale Adumim are built on private land as per the information provided by the Israeli government.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> So this gives the Palestinians the right to ignore the International laws and the Geneva conventions because they have not singed them. Making them the ones that have the get out of jail card. And you expect Israel to roll over and die because of this.
> 
> According to International law Israel is in full compliance because the Palestinians have refused to sing up. They know that once they sign a peace deal they will be forced into complying with International law and they will be seen as the aggressors. And you wont have a leg to stand on regarding your JEW HATRED.



Israel has signed the 4th Geneva Conventions.  Palestine has not.

If Israel doesn't want to be bound by the treaty they should leave it.

Otherwise they are in violation of the treaty and can be brought before the International Criminal Court to face charges of war crimes for theft and misappropriation of private land in Occupied Territories.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Victory67 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But most settlements are not built on such land".  A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land.  So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most settlements are not built on private land.
> 
> But most of the main settlements like Ariel and Maale Adumim are built on private land as per the information provided by the Israeli government.
Click to expand...


Those two "settlements" that you just mentioned are full cities now.  Although they have no Biblical or specifically Jewish association, in terms of population and development, they are impossible to give up.  My brother-in-law's family live in Maale Adumim, as well as the brother of one of my best friends.  My own immediate family recently bought 2 apartments there.  It's considered a suburb of Jerusalem.  In any final peace agreement, Maale Adumim will probably be exchanged for some land in the Negev.


----------



## Victory67

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Those two "settlements" that you just mentioned are full cities now.  Although they have no Biblical or specifically Jewish association, in terms of population and development, they are impossible to give up.  My brother-in-law's family live in Maale Adumim, as well as the brother of one of my best friends.  My own immediate family recently bought 2 apartments there.  It's considered a suburb of Jerusalem.  In any final peace agreement, Maale Adumim will probably be exchanged for some land in the Negev.



If Palestine chooses to let Israel keep these settlements in a final peace accord that is their right.  But I also think the land owners deserve financial or land compensation for their lost property.

But if no accord is reached Israel should be taken before the ICC to face war crimes charges.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
Click to expand...





 Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they follow them to the letter if you bother to check what they say, they have occupied the land and have clearly stated that at the end of peace talks that have a mutually agreed outcome they will return the lands to their legal owners. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THEY WILL OCCUPY THE LAND AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE AS LAID DOWN IN THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian housing do not count as military installations.
> 
> The Occupying Power only has the right to confiscate private land to install bases and other military infrastructure.  Housing got families and children do not count as military bases or military infrastructure.
> 
> The only settlements that are legal are those that were built on legally purchased land and those are few and far between.
Click to expand...





Land stolen in 1948 is still land owned by Jews, and they have a right of return. Now show that the land was not Jewish prior to the expulsion of the jews by the arabs ?


----------



## Indeependent

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they follow them to the letter if you bother to check what they say, they have occupied the land and have clearly stated that at the end of peace talks that have a mutually agreed outcome they will return the lands to their legal owners. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THEY WILL OCCUPY THE LAND AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE AS LAID DOWN IN THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian housing do not count as military installations.
> 
> The Occupying Power only has the right to confiscate private land to install bases and other military infrastructure.  Housing got families and children do not count as military bases or military infrastructure.
> 
> The only settlements that are legal are those that were built on legally purchased land and those are few and far between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Land stolen in 1948 is still land owned by Jews, and they have a right of return. Now show that the land was not Jewish prior to the expulsion of the jews by the arabs ?
Click to expand...


Where's Indiana Jones when you need him?


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.
> 
> The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.
> 
> If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And become just like your friends the islamonazi's, then you would have no reason to spew out your JEW HATRED and would have to find another outlet for your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phoenall calm down . Pbel and Tinmore don't hate Jews.
Click to expand...




 They do which is why they want to see Israel destroyed and the Jews wiped out


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But most settlements are not built on such land".  A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land.  So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.
Click to expand...





No doubt the other 33% is in question as well, with Palestinians claiming land they stole from the Jews in 1948.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?



Yes, I can.

Filealestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The vast majority of land owned in the West Bank in 1947 was owned by Arabs and not Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But most settlements are not built on such land".  A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land.  So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they are built on Palestinian state land.
Click to expand...





 Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948


----------



## Indeependent

Wow!  They gave that all up to allow Jordan to roll in tanks.
Many those Arab land owners should have told Jordan to stay off their property.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948



The vast majority of land in Palestine in 1947 was not owned by Jews.

You can't steal something from someone if it was never owned by them.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of land in Palestine in 1947 was not owned by Jews.
> 
> You can't steal something from someone if it was never owned by them.
Click to expand...


They left...Remember that part?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> They left...Remember that part?



The Arabs of the West Bank never left.

But Israel did kick many of them off their land and made them homeless.


----------



## Kondor3

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of land in Palestine in 1947 was not owned by Jews.
> 
> You can't steal something from someone if it was never owned by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They left...Remember that part?
Click to expand...

Abandoned land = forfeited land = change of title deed

All kinds of legal tricks to get around that... including seizure for back-taxes, etc...

Courtroom fun for young and old, for years to come...


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Abandoned land = forfeited land = change of title deed
> 
> All kinds of legal tricks to get around that... including seizure for back-taxes, etc...



Yes, we know that Israel has used all sorts of legal trickery in order to steal land. They have become pretty masterful at this.


----------



## Ronin

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?
Click to expand...


Does it matter if any proof is shown?  Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other.  Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.   

If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.

Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Ronin said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.
> 
> But most settlements are not built on such land.   They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter if any proof is shown?  Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other.  Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.
> 
> If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.
> 
> Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?
Click to expand...


Not only G-d, but history, archaeology, safe haven and refuge, ancestry, etc.


----------



## Victory67

Ronin said:


> Does it matter if any proof is shown?  Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other.  Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.
> 
> If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.
> 
> Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?



The British thoroughly investigated the issue of land ownership in Palestine.

They found that the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs.

But of course these findings will be disregarded by Israelis because it counters their irredentalist goals.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67, _et al,_

The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.  It was the UNSCOP that made the recommendation for the Partition Plan and not Israel.  These recommendation covered:

I.	The independent State of Palestine
II.	Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitutions of Palestine
III.	Boundaries of the Arab and Jewish States in the independent State of Palestine
IV.	Capitulations
V.	The Holy Places, religious interests and Jerusalem
A.	Religious interests and Holy Places
B.	Jerusalem
C.	Irrevocability of provisions​VI.	International responsibility for Jewish displaced persons
VII.	Jewish immigration into Palestine​


Victory67 said:


> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter if any proof is shown?  Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other.  Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.
> 
> If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.
> 
> Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British thoroughly investigated the issue of land ownership in Palestine.
> 
> They found that the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs.
> 
> But of course these findings will be disregarded by Israelis because it counters their irredentalist goals.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Israelis did not disregard anything.  They followed the multinational UNSCOP recommendation that became the General Assembly Resolution 181(II).  

Land ownership and demographics were not the only considerations made in the development of the recommendations made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

RoccoR said:


> Victory67, _et al,_
> 
> The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.  It was the UNSCOP that made the recommendation for the Partition Plan and not Israel.  These recommendation covered:
> 
> I.	The independent State of Palestine
> II.	Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitutions of Palestine
> III.	Boundaries of the Arab and Jewish States in the independent State of Palestine
> IV.	Capitulations
> V.	The Holy Places, religious interests and Jerusalem
> A.	Religious interests and Holy Places
> B.	Jerusalem
> C.	Irrevocability of provisions​VI.	International responsibility for Jewish displaced persons
> VII.	Jewish immigration into Palestine​
> The Israelis did not disregard anything.  They followed the multinational UNSCOP recommendation that became the General Assembly Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Land ownership and demographics were not the only considerations made in the development of the recommendations made.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



My point is that the Israelis here will ignore the British findings that most of Palestine's private land was owned by Arabs and not Jews.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67, _et al,_

Your point leads us where?



Victory67 said:


> My point is that the Israelis here will ignore the British findings that most of Palestine's private land was owned by Arabs and not Jews.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether the Israelis ignore it or not, the recommendation was independent of the Israelis notice of the data.

It was the UNSCOP made the recommendations and the UNPC implemented the recommendations.  

What is the connection?  What are you accusing the Israelis of in the first place?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

RoccoR said:


> Whether the Israelis ignore it or not, the recommendation was independent of the Israelis notice of the data.
> 
> It was the UNSCOP made the recommendations and the UNPC implemented the recommendations.
> 
> What is the connection?  What are you accusing the Israelis of in the first place?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



The issue is the building of settlements on confiscated private property in the West Bank.

This is illegal under the 4th Geneva Conventions.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

We can all chuckle at this.



Victory67 said:


> The issue is the building of settlements on confiscated private property in the West Bank.
> 
> This is illegal under the 4th Geneva Conventions.


*(COMMENT)*

This is such a minor issue, since the issue has to be negotiated anyway. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Victory67, _et al,_
> 
> The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.  It was the UNSCOP that made the recommendation for the Partition Plan and not Israel.  These recommendation covered:
> 
> I.	The independent State of Palestine
> II.	Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitutions of Palestine
> III.	Boundaries of the Arab and Jewish States in the independent State of Palestine
> IV.	Capitulations
> V.	The Holy Places, religious interests and Jerusalem
> A.	Religious interests and Holy Places
> B.	Jerusalem
> C.	Irrevocability of provisions​VI.	International responsibility for Jewish displaced persons
> VII.	Jewish immigration into Palestine​
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter if any proof is shown?  Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other.  Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.
> 
> If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.
> 
> Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British thoroughly investigated the issue of land ownership in Palestine.
> 
> They found that the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs.
> 
> But of course these findings will be disregarded by Israelis because it counters their irredentalist goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israelis did not disregard anything.  They followed the multinational UNSCOP recommendation that became the General Assembly Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Land ownership and demographics were not the only considerations made in the development of the recommendations made.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.



*Illegal external interference extraordinaire!*

*And nobody from Palestine.*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore; _et al,_

This is another complaint from the perpetual victim.



> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal external interference extraordinaire!
> 
> And nobody from Palestine.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The territory was under UN Mandate/Trusteeship, because the indigenous population could not then _(much as it does now)_ demonstrate that it was able to stand alone, practice tolerance in their international relations,  settle their international disputes by nonviolent means in such a manner that international peace,  security, and justice are not endangered.  Neither was it the case that the indigenous population could refrain in their from the use of threat and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of an another State.

The external interference was the 5 Arab League Nations that invaded the UN Trusteeship.

There were no regional Jewish or Arab direct membership on the UNSCOP.  It was a decision best left to the independent members and the TrusteeShip/Mandate Commission.
Having said that, there was invited Jewish or Arab Palestinian participation; although as usual, the Arab Palestinian lacked a certain enthusiasm in the crafting of the outcome.



			
				ANNEX 3  Provisional rules of procedure of the Special Committee said:
			
		

> VIII. LIAISON OFFICERS
> 
> *Rule 31*
> 
> The mandatory Power, *the Arab Higher Committee*, and the Jewish Agency for Palestine may appoint liaison officers to the Committee who shall supply such information or render such other assistance as the Committee may require. The liaison officers may, suo motu, present at the discretion of the Committee such information as they may think advisable.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CHAIRMAN circulated a draft letter 1/ to be sent to the Arab Higher Committee expressing the Committee's wish to hear their views The draft letter read as follows: said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir:	 8 July 1947
> 
> I have the honour to inform you, on behalf of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has communicated to the Committee the cable of 13 June, signed by you which conveyed to the United Nations decision of the Arab Higher Committee with regard to the attitude of Palestine Arabs toward the work of the Committee.
> 
> The Committee has noted with genuine regret this decision of the Arab Higher Committee. In this connection, your attention is called by my statement broadcast from the Palestine Broadcasting Service Studio on 16 June, at which time I emphasized that "the Committee earnestly hopes for full cooperation in its task from all elements in the population."
> 
> On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate this statement with particular reference to the Arab population of Palestine. The Committee would welcome expressions of the Arab viewpoint.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Emil Sandstrom
> Chairman, United Nations
> Special Committee on Palestine​*SOURCE:* A/AC.13/SR.23  13 July 1947
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/364 Add. 1   3 September 1947
Click to expand...


And the Statements by the representatives of the Arab countries also participated, as in the 38th Meeting Held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday 22 July 1947 (A/AC.13/PV.38  4 August 1947).

While the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians) lacked a certain air of cooperation, as you can see, the UNSCOP attempted to bring them into the process.

The Recommendations, if they were absent Arab Palestinian input, was not a product of the UNSCOP Process shutting them out as you would have the discussion group believe.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> This is another complaint from the perpetual victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Partition Plan was put together by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which consisted of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal external interference extraordinaire!
> 
> And nobody from Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The territory was under UN Mandate/Trusteeship, because the indigenous population could not then _(much as it does now)_ demonstrate that it was able to stand alone, practice tolerance in their international relations,  settle their international disputes by nonviolent means in such a manner that international peace,  security, and justice are not endangered.  Neither was it the case that the indigenous population could refrain in their from the use of threat and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of an another State.
> 
> The external interference was the 5 Arab League Nations that invaded the UN Trusteeship.
> 
> There were no regional Jewish or Arab direct membership on the UNSCOP.  It was a decision best left to the independent members and the TrusteeShip/Mandate Commission.
> Having said that, there was invited Jewish or Arab Palestinian participation; although as usual, the Arab Palestinian lacked a certain enthusiasm in the crafting of the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANNEX 3  Provisional rules of procedure of the Special Committee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VIII. LIAISON OFFICERS
> 
> *Rule 31*
> 
> The mandatory Power, *the Arab Higher Committee*, and the Jewish Agency for Palestine may appoint liaison officers to the Committee who shall supply such information or render such other assistance as the Committee may require. The liaison officers may, suo motu, present at the discretion of the Committee such information as they may think advisable.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CHAIRMAN circulated a draft letter 1/ to be sent to the Arab Higher Committee expressing the Committee's wish to hear their views The draft letter read as follows: said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir:	 8 July 1947
> 
> I have the honour to inform you, on behalf of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has communicated to the Committee the cable of 13 June, signed by you which conveyed to the United Nations decision of the Arab Higher Committee with regard to the attitude of Palestine Arabs toward the work of the Committee.
> 
> The Committee has noted with genuine regret this decision of the Arab Higher Committee. In this connection, your attention is called by my statement broadcast from the Palestine Broadcasting Service Studio on 16 June, at which time I emphasized that "the Committee earnestly hopes for full cooperation in its task from all elements in the population."
> 
> On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate this statement with particular reference to the Arab population of Palestine. The Committee would welcome expressions of the Arab viewpoint.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Emil Sandstrom
> Chairman, United Nations
> Special Committee on Palestine​*SOURCE:* A/AC.13/SR.23  13 July 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/364 Add. 1   3 September 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Statements by the representatives of the Arab countries also participated, as in the 38th Meeting Held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday 22 July 1947 (A/AC.13/PV.38  4 August 1947).
> 
> While the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians) lacked a certain air of cooperation, as you can see, the UNSCOP attempted to bring them into the process.
> 
> The Recommendations, if they were absent Arab Palestinian input, was not a product of the UNSCOP Process shutting them out as you would have the discussion group believe.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


All smokescreen aside:



> *Reaffirming* the obligation of Member States to comply with the
> principles of the Charter and the resolutions of the United Nations
> regarding the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all
> peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,* their
> political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
> development,
> 
> *Reaffirming* also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian
> people to self-determination,...
> 
> A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes



Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.

Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,...* you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did.

Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.


----------



## toastman

Why is it that whenever you don't like what Rocco says, you call it a smokescreen. He addressed what you said and even more. 

And he explained very well about why foreigners were involved, Tinmore. Learn to fuckin comprehend


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Why is it that whenever you don't like what Rocco says, you call it a smokescreen. He addressed what you said and even more.
> 
> And he explained very well about why foreigners were involved, Tinmore. Learn to fuckin comprehend





			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, *without external interference,... *you always respond with a list of shit that* foreigners* did.



What did I say that was incorrect?


----------



## Kondor3

Why were foreigners involved?

Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.

Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.

Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.

You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.

The point is also moot.

Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.

If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.

In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.

Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that whenever you don't like what Rocco says, you call it a smokescreen. He addressed what you said and even more.
> 
> And he explained very well about why foreigners were involved, Tinmore. Learn to fuckin comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine, *without external interference,... *you always respond with a list of shit that* foreigners* did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I say that was incorrect?
Click to expand...


You always complain that foreigners were/are involved in Palestine's affairs


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Why were foreigners involved?
> 
> Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.
> 
> Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.
> 
> Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.
> 
> You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.
> 
> The point is also moot.
> 
> Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.
> 
> If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.
> 
> In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.
> 
> Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.





> Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.



Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.



> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations



Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.

The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were foreigners involved?
> 
> Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.
> 
> Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.
> 
> Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.
> 
> You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.
> 
> The point is also moot.
> 
> Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.
> 
> If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.
> 
> In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.
> 
> Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.
> 
> The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.
Click to expand...


By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea?  By blowing up a family at their Passover meal?  By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country?  By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?


----------



## Indeependent

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were foreigners involved?
> 
> Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.
> 
> Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.
> 
> Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.
> 
> You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.
> 
> The point is also moot.
> 
> Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.
> 
> If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.
> 
> In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.
> 
> Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.
> 
> The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea?  By blowing up a family at their Passover meal?  By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country?  By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?
Click to expand...


Ancient History!


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore; _et al,_

You are purposely confusing what "external interference" is in this case.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.
> 
> Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,...* you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did.
> 
> Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.


*(COMMENT)*

The Territory named Palestine by the Allied Power was, depending on the time frame, either under the full powers of legislation and of administration of either the UK as the Mandatory (Article 1 of the Mandate) or the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT); they are on the inside _(the internal influence)_ of the territory.  Anyone on the outside of the territory is the "external interference;" including the Arab League Powers that have to exit their sovereign territory in order to enter the Mandate Territory/Trusteeship.

When the Jewish Agency exercised their right of Self-Determination under the implementation instruction of the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT), it became sovereign, pursuant to the borders originally established by the Resolution being implemented by the UNPC _("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue")_ it became a second legal entity.  Any force exiting their sovereignty to effect entry into either the remaining unapportioned Mandate Territory/Trusteeship or the new Sovereign State of Israel became an "external interference."

The term "external interference;" and "foreigner" or not interchangeable, and not synonymous.   Please note that the 27 February 1996  General Assembly Resolution 50/172 - Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes - which came five decades later, does not use the word foreigner or foreign even once in the entire document.  That is so you don't get confused.  While the Allied Powers may be foreign to you, they were either the Mandatory or the Successor Government for the territory in question. 

*(PREMISE)* 


"you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did."

This may be true.  But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.  

I hope you now understand the difference between the non-applicable term of "foreign" and applicable term "external."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were foreigners involved?
> 
> Because the so-called 'indigenous' Muslim-Arab population of Old Palestine was considered Politically Incompetent and incapable of governing themselves or making decisions in such matters.
> 
> Consequently, no indigenous governing body existed.
> 
> Consequently, foreigners 'interfered' by right of (a) conquest and (b) League Mandate.
> 
> You are entirely correct about the 'external interference' thing.
> 
> The point is also moot.
> 
> Given their incompetency at the time, no 'internal' governance nor decision-making would have been possible anyway, in any practical and effective sense of the concept.
> 
> If a so-called People was 'incompetent' at the time, then there's no point claiming that as a defense or abrogated right, 70 or 80 years later.
> 
> In a political sense, metaphorically speaking, today, the Palestinians are lucky if they can keep both socks pulled up.
> 
> Seventy or eighty years ago, they barely knew what socks were, never mind how to use, them, metaphorically speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.
> 
> The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea?  By blowing up a family at their Passover meal?  By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country?  By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?
Click to expand...


Chickenfeed compared to Israel's crimes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> You are purposely confusing what "external interference" is in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.
> 
> Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,...* you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did.
> 
> Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Territory named Palestine by the Allied Power was, depending on the time frame, either under the full powers of legislation and of administration of either the UK as the Mandatory (Article 1 of the Mandate) or the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT); they are on the inside _(the internal influence)_ of the territory.  Anyone on the outside of the territory is the "external interference;" including the Arab League Powers that have to exit their sovereign territory in order to enter the Mandate Territory/Trusteeship.
> 
> When the Jewish Agency exercised their right of Self-Determination under the implementation instruction of the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT), it became sovereign, pursuant to the borders originally established by the Resolution being implemented by the UNPC _("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue")_ it became a second legal entity.  Any force exiting their sovereignty to effect entry into either the remaining unapportioned Mandate Territory/Trusteeship or the new Sovereign State of Israel became an "external interference."
> 
> The term "external interference;" and "foreigner" or not interchangeable, and not synonymous.   Please note that the 27 February 1996  General Assembly Resolution 50/172 - Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes - which came five decades later, does not use the word foreigner or foreign even once in the entire document.  That is so you don't get confused.  While the Allied Powers may be foreign to you, they were either the Mandatory or the Successor Government for the territory in question.
> 
> *(PREMISE)*
> 
> 
> "you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did."
> 
> This may be true.  But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.
> 
> I hope you now understand the difference between the non-applicable term of "foreign" and applicable term "external."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question.



OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.

If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.

If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground._"


So they delude themselves into believing.

Silly, silly Palestinians.

That, and $3.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

It's certainly worked wonders for them so far...







...hasn't it?

Any more 'success' like this, and folks are gonna start joke-questioning amongst themselves: How many Palestinians can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.
> 
> The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea?  By blowing up a family at their Passover meal?  By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country?  By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chickenfeed compared to Israel's crimes.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection. The Palestinians have tarnished their reputation , mainly because of the second intifada, which you love to ignore. I understand that more and more Palestinians are seeking non violent ways to protest, but what they have done cannot be undone.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> You are purposely confusing what "external interference" is in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.
> 
> Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,...* you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did.
> 
> Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Territory named Palestine by the Allied Power was, depending on the time frame, either under the full powers of legislation and of administration of either the UK as the Mandatory (Article 1 of the Mandate) or the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT); they are on the inside _(the internal influence)_ of the territory.  Anyone on the outside of the territory is the "external interference;" including the Arab League Powers that have to exit their sovereign territory in order to enter the Mandate Territory/Trusteeship.
> 
> When the Jewish Agency exercised their right of Self-Determination under the implementation instruction of the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT), it became sovereign, pursuant to the borders originally established by the Resolution being implemented by the UNPC _("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue")_ it became a second legal entity.  Any force exiting their sovereignty to effect entry into either the remaining unapportioned Mandate Territory/Trusteeship or the new Sovereign State of Israel became an "external interference."
> 
> The term "external interference;" and "foreigner" or not interchangeable, and not synonymous.   Please note that the 27 February 1996  General Assembly Resolution 50/172 - Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes - which came five decades later, does not use the word foreigner or foreign even once in the entire document.  That is so you don't get confused.  While the Allied Powers may be foreign to you, they were either the Mandatory or the Successor Government for the territory in question.
> 
> *(PREMISE)*
> 
> 
> "you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did."
> 
> This may be true.  But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.
> 
> I hope you now understand the difference between the non-applicable term of "foreign" and applicable term "external."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. *But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.*
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
Click to expand...


Even if this was true....so what?? What's your point ? How does it change anything ?


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> I don't advocate killing them.
> 
> I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.



And of course none of the Israelis here who accuse me of wanting to violate Jewish rights, will dare challenge your very racist goal.

  [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]    [MENTION=35705]Phoenall[/MENTION]

This is because too many Israelis have a "blue wall of silence" and refuse to ever be critical of Israeli racism or fascism.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't advocate killing them.
> 
> I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course none of the Israelis here who accuse me of wanting to violate Jewish rights, will dare challenge your very racist goal.
> 
> [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]    [MENTION=35705]Phoenall[/MENTION]
> 
> This is because too many Israelis have a "blue wall of silence" and refuse to ever be critical of Israeli racism or fascism.
Click to expand...

Awwww... I don't think you like the *Expulsion Concept*.

Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, what to do next?

Maybe we should ask all those Muslim-Arab countries to take back the Jews THEY have expelled in the 1948-1975 timeframe, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Better yet...

Israel can expel all the Muslim-Arab West Bankers and Gazans...

THEN go back to those Arab countries, and ask them to accept their old expelled Jewish populations back in return, and to provide compensation and restitution.

THEN we can ask the Jews of Israel to do the same.

And if the Jews don't make-good, after all that, *then* you'll get more folks jumping on-side, and joining you in a call for firmer action against Israel.

THAT seems fair...

What's good for the Muslim goose is good for the Jewish gander...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore; _et al,_

First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point.  The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question; not an "external interference."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established _("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them")_ that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination.  The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.  

The UN _et al_, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option. 

*(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)*



			
				Excerpt PLO History Page said:
			
		

> In 1988, we made a historic compromise by relinquishing our claim to 78 percent of the territory encompassed by historic Palestine. We accepted to establish an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the remaining 22 percent of our territory occupied by Israel in 1967. We simultaneously recognized UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which reaffirmed the illegality of Israels acquisition of our territory by force. *In 1993, we took one further step to engage in peace negotiations with Israel to realize our national rights to self-determination and statehood.* Through such negotiations, we accepted to make further historic compromises in various temporary agreements, known as the Oslo Accords, (named after the city where PLO and Israeli negotiators conducted their negotiations). The temporary agreements were supposed to end five years from signing, in 1999, and lead to a permanent agreement. The permanent agreement promised to end Israels military occupation; to provide us with the opportunity to rebuild our country, including our economy, without Israeli interference; and to achieve a just resolution to our refugee issue based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194. This has not happened.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PLO-NAD History Page





			
				EXCERPT:  Paragraph 2:  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General said:
			
		

> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT:  Palestinian Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the *exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination*, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/43/827   S/20278   18 November 1988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/53/879   S/1999/334   25 March 1999
Click to expand...


Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.

Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> You are purposely confusing what "external interference" is in this case.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Territory named Palestine by the Allied Power was, depending on the time frame, either under the full powers of legislation and of administration of either the UK as the Mandatory (Article 1 of the Mandate) or the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT); they are on the inside _(the internal influence)_ of the territory.  Anyone on the outside of the territory is the "external interference;" including the Arab League Powers that have to exit their sovereign territory in order to enter the Mandate Territory/Trusteeship.
> 
> When the Jewish Agency exercised their right of Self-Determination under the implementation instruction of the Successor Government of the UNPC (UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT), it became sovereign, pursuant to the borders originally established by the Resolution being implemented by the UNPC _("guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue")_ it became a second legal entity.  Any force exiting their sovereignty to effect entry into either the remaining unapportioned Mandate Territory/Trusteeship or the new Sovereign State of Israel became an "external interference."
> 
> The term "external interference;" and "foreigner" or not interchangeable, and not synonymous.   Please note that the 27 February 1996  General Assembly Resolution 50/172 - Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes - which came five decades later, does not use the word foreigner or foreign even once in the entire document.  That is so you don't get confused.  While the Allied Powers may be foreign to you, they were either the Mandatory or the Successor Government for the territory in question.
> 
> *(PREMISE)*
> 
> 
> "you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did."
> 
> This may be true.  But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the responsibility of Trusteeship over the territory in question.
> 
> I hope you now understand the difference between the non-applicable term of "foreign" and applicable term "external."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. *But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.*
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if this was true....so what?? What's your point ? How does it change anything ?
Click to expand...


It does change the frame of world debate. Israel is starting to have to defend itself and that is increasingly difficult as the truth gets out.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. *But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.*
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if this was true....so what?? What's your point ? How does it change anything ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does change the frame of world debate. Israel is starting to have to defend itself and that is increasingly difficult as the truth gets out.
Click to expand...


The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it. 

Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing. 
If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point.  The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question; not an "external interference."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true. But the foreigners in question, the UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
> 
> Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established _("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them")_ that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination.  The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.
> 
> The UN _et al_, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.
> 
> *(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT:  Paragraph 2:  Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT:  Palestinian Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and *on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> 
> Through the *exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination*, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/43/827   S/20278   18 November 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/53/879   S/1999/334   25 March 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.
> 
> Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.



The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point.  The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question; not an "external interference."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
> 
> Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established _("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them")_ that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination.  The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.
> 
> The UN _et al_, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.
> 
> *(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.
> 
> Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.
Click to expand...


False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point.  The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question; not an "external interference."
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
> 
> Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established _("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them")_ that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination.  The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.
> 
> The UN _et al_, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.
> 
> *(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.
> 
> Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.
Click to expand...


Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.


----------



## RoccoR

toastman,  _et al,_

This is a discussion of history.



toastman said:


> The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.
> 
> Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
> If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand


*(COMMENT)*

I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution.  There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.

Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination.  They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty.  Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.
Click to expand...


After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, *Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine*. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a discussion of history.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.
> 
> Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
> If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution.  There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.
> 
> Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination.  They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty.  Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will never reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts. In fact, they have stated this many times. They will reject any peace deal with Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, *Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine*. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.
Click to expand...




> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan.



The plan is meaningless. The plan never happened. 

A state can be declared by a people inside their own defined territory.

Where was that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a discussion of history.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.
> 
> Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
> If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution.  There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.
> 
> Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination.  They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty.  Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will never reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts. In fact, they have stated this many times. They will reject any peace *deal* with Israel.
Click to expand...


A deal is something you get from a used car salesman.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> _Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will never reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts. In fact, they have stated this many times. They will reject any peace deal with Israel._


Excellent.

That will make destroying Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and killing its membership far more palatable when the time comes.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, *Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine*. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plan is meaningless. The plan never happened.
> 
> A state can be declared by a people inside their own defined territory.
> 
> Where was that?
Click to expand...


I really don't understand your question. Either way, it is irrelevant. As my link clearly states, Israel "* demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN*"

They met the prerequisites. This whole defined territory drivel is meaningless. You made it up

Now, are you once again saying that partition plan was and is meaningless?? For both declarations (Israel in 1948 and Palestine in 1988) ?
Because I've already provided links that say the EXACT OPPOSITE


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> toastman,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a discussion of history.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.
> 
> Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
> If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution.  There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.
> 
> Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination.  They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty.  Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It was clearly illegality and no matter how hard you try to convince others that ethnically cleansing most non-Jews from what is now Israel was legal.

The civil rights of the non-Jews were not safeguarded as required by the Mandate Article 2.

"ART. 2.

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


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a discussion of history.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing Israel needs to defend are attacks against it.
> 
> Weather there was external interference or not, weather it was legal or not (concerning 'Palestine'), will not change a thing.
> If you guys are discussing this issue just for the sake of discussing it, then I completely understand
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution.  There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.
> 
> Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination.  They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty.  Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was clearly illegality and no matter how hard you try to convince others that ethnically cleansing most non-Jews from what is now Israel was legal.
> 
> The civil rights of the non-Jews were not safeguarded as required by the Mandate Article 2.
> 
> "ART. 2.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, *and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.*"
Click to expand...


What specifically was illegal ?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> toastman,  _et al,_
> 
> This is a discussion of history.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think it is important for the Arab-Palestinian to understand that the last six decades of conflict were not based on the Arab-Palestinians being withheld from their right of self-determination or some illegality of the 1947 Resolution.  There may be other reasons, but clearly that is not one of them.
> 
> Their choice to pursue conflict, was a form of self-determination.  They eventually came to recognized the resolution and exercise their sovereignty.  Now all they need to do is reject Jihad and armed struggle concepts.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was clearly illegality and no matter how hard you try to convince others that ethnically cleansing most non-Jews from what is now Israel was legal.
> 
> The civil rights of the non-Jews were not safeguarded as required by the Mandate Article 2.
> 
> "ART. 2.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, *and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What specifically was illegal ?
Click to expand...


Ethnically cleansing the non-Jews is a crime against humanity, not preserving the civil rights of the non-Jews (by allowing the majority of them to be ethnically cleansed) was contrary to what Britain agreed to do in accordance with  the Mandate.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was clearly illegality and no matter how hard you try to convince others that ethnically cleansing most non-Jews from what is now Israel was legal.
> 
> The civil rights of the non-Jews were not safeguarded as required by the Mandate Article 2.
> 
> "ART. 2.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, *and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically was illegal ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ethnically cleansing the non-Jews is a crime against humanity, not preserving the civil rights of the non-Jews (by allowing the majority of them to be ethnically cleansed) was contrary to what Britain agreed to do in accordance with  the Mandate.
Click to expand...


You may very well be correct...and about three people other than yourself cares.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> You may very well be correct...and about three people other than yourself cares.



The world cares about ethnic cleansing of non-Jews.

Israel might not care but that matters little.  The world is used to Israel being selfish and unswayed by the suffering of others.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may very well be correct...and about three people other than yourself cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world cares about ethnic cleansing of non-Jews.
> 
> Israel might not care but that matters little.  The world is used to Israel being selfish and unswayed by the suffering of others.
Click to expand...


I see...
That's why Israeli physicians are in every Arab Spring nation right now helping.
Do you practice being an a$$-hole or does it come naturally?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> I see...
> That's why Israeli physicians are in every Arab Spring nation right now helping.
> Do you practice being an a$$-hole or does it come naturally?



This is why much of the world hates Israel.  They are rude, arrogant, and unable to tolerate different points of view, especially ones that are critical of Israel.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may very well be correct...and about three people other than yourself cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world cares about ethnic cleansing of non-Jews.
> 
> Israel might not care but that matters little.  The world is used to Israel being selfish and unswayed by the suffering of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see...
> That's why Israeli physicians are in every Arab Spring nation right now helping.
> Do you practice being an a$$-hole or does it come naturally?
Click to expand...


Israelis are helping Syrian refugees.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> I see...
> That's why Israeli physicians are in every Arab Spring nation right now helping.
> Do you practice being an a$$-hole or does it come naturally?



Israeli doctors are in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and Algeria?  

That's total bullshit and you know it.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see...
> That's why Israeli physicians are in every Arab Spring nation right now helping.
> Do you practice being an a$$-hole or does it come naturally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli doctors are in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and Algeria?
> 
> That's total bullshit and you know it.
Click to expand...


My wife surfs the neutral sites while you read AllahAkbar.com all day.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> My wife surfs the neutral sites while you read AllahAkbar.com all day.



Please show me some proof that Israeli doctors are today operating in 
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and Algeria.   Or you should retract your claim.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> This is another complaint from the perpetual victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal external interference extraordinaire!
> 
> And nobody from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The territory was under UN Mandate/Trusteeship, because the indigenous population could not then _(much as it does now)_ demonstrate that it was able to stand alone, practice tolerance in their international relations,  settle their international disputes by nonviolent means in such a manner that international peace,  security, and justice are not endangered.  Neither was it the case that the indigenous population could refrain in their from the use of threat and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of an another State.
> 
> The external interference was the 5 Arab League Nations that invaded the UN Trusteeship.
> 
> There were no regional Jewish or Arab direct membership on the UNSCOP.  It was a decision best left to the independent members and the TrusteeShip/Mandate Commission.
> Having said that, there was invited Jewish or Arab Palestinian participation; although as usual, the Arab Palestinian lacked a certain enthusiasm in the crafting of the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> And the Statements by the representatives of the Arab countries also participated, as in the 38th Meeting Held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday 22 July 1947 (A/AC.13/PV.38  4 August 1947).
> 
> While the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians) lacked a certain air of cooperation, as you can see, the UNSCOP attempted to bring them into the process.
> 
> The Recommendations, if they were absent Arab Palestinian input, was not a product of the UNSCOP Process shutting them out as you would have the discussion group believe.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All smokescreen aside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reaffirming* the obligation of Member States to comply with the
> principles of the Charter and the resolutions of the United Nations
> regarding the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all
> peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,* their
> political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
> development,
> 
> *Reaffirming* also, in this context, the right of the Palestinian
> people to self-determination,...
> 
> A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it say without external interference, except by...? No it does not.
> 
> Whenever I bring up the right to self-determination, by virtue of which all peoples can freely determine,* without external interference,...* you always respond with a list of shit that *foreigners* did.
> 
> Natives are internal. Foreigners are external. Try to keep that straight.
Click to expand...




 As in Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi, Iraqi etc who all interfered to stop the Palestinians self determination


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> All smokescreen aside:
> 
> As in Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi, Iraqi etc who all interfered to stop the Palestinians self determination



You seem to be very good at disregarding all evidence that counters your pre-conceived notions of truth.  Reports from Peace Now, text from the 4th Geneva Conventions, maps of Jerusalem, and now a pretty thought out analysis of UN law.

This is why Israel has so many enemies and peace is so difficult.  It is a nation full of people that ignore everything they don't want to see and hear.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that was the purpose of the mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> Britain violated the LoN Covenant at the behest of the foreign World Zionist Organization, and violated the inherent rights of the Palestinians. After two a half decades of mandate there was still no elected government.
> 
> The Palestinians defend their country and seek justice. They hold the legal and moral high ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By pushing a wheelchair-bound old man into the sea?  By blowing up a family at their Passover meal?  By killing Israeli athletes competing in a foreign country?  By smothering an old lady in her bed in Uganda, after she was left behind in the Entebbe raid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chickenfeed compared to Israel's crimes.
Click to expand...






What crimes would they be then ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't advocate killing them.
> 
> I advocate evicting them from the West Bank and Gaza by force-of-arms, and expelling them into Jordan and Lebanon, then moving Israelis into the vacuum left by their departure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course none of the Israelis here who accuse me of wanting to violate Jewish rights, will dare challenge your very racist goal.
> 
> [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]    [MENTION=35705]Phoenall[/MENTION]
> 
> This is because too many Israelis have a "blue wall of silence" and refuse to ever be critical of Israeli racism or fascism.
Click to expand...






Read what he wrote and see that it is his opinion, and as such is not open to question. You on the other hand spout NAZI HATRED straight from the hate sites, and then deflect when shown to be doing so.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> What crimes would they be then ?



Misuse of confiscated private land during a war.

Ethnic cleansing and illegal deporations of Protected Persons during a war.

Use of State land in Occupied Territory for discriminatory purposes.

Violation of the civil rights of Protected Persons in Occupied Territories.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Read what he wrote and see that it is his opinion, and as such is not open to question. You on the other hand spout NAZI HATRED straight from the hate sites, and then deflect when shown to be doing so.



Criticising Israel does not equal "Nazi hatred".

It is attitudes like yours that leads to hated and animosity towards Israel and Israelis.

If you want to know why many people around the world dislike Israel, read your posts and look in the mirror.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> "..._Ethnically cleansing the non-Jews is a crime against humanity, not preserving the civil rights of the non-Jews (by allowing the majority of them to be ethnically cleansed) was contrary to what Britain agreed to do in accordance with  the Mandate._"


Most Friendlies prefer the term 'Population Transfer'.

As in the massive 'transfer' of Jewish populations from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe.

'Humanity' didn't do diddly-squat for the Jews when the Jews were being 'ethnically cleansed' or 'transferred' from their European homes into ghettos and camps...

'Humanity' didn't do diddly-squat for the Jews when the Muslim-Arabs were kicking them or pressuring them out of one Muslim country after another in the 1948-1975 timeframe...

What makes you think 'Humanity' is going to do diddly-squate when the Jews finally turn the tables and evict and expel a couple of million hostiles?

Hell, even their Arab-Muslim neighbors don't want anything to do with the mad-dog Palestinians.

Otherwise, why would the Egyptians wall them off and blockade Gaza, alongside the Israelis?

Methinks your 'crimes against humanity' pitch isn't going to get the kind of traction you're hoping for...

The Muslims, and the Palestinians, have done far too much of that themselves - and to Jews who were not shooting at them, no less - for that to work as well for you as you would like...


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Most Friendlies prefer the term 'Population Transfer'.
> 
> As in the massive 'transfer' of Jewish populations from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe.
> 
> 'Humanity' didn't do diddly-squat for the Jews when the Jews were being 'ethnically cleansed' or 'transferred' from their European homes into ghettos and camps...
> 
> 'Humanity' didn't do diddly-squat for the Jews when the Muslim-Arabs were kicking them or pressuring them out of one Muslim country after another in the 1948-1975 timeframe...
> 
> What makes you think 'Humanity' is going to do diddly-squate when the Jews finally turn the tables and evict and expel a couple of million hostiles?



If you and Israel are willing to suffer world-wide boycott and total paraia status, be my guest.

Just don't cry about "anti-Semitism" when it happens because the world will laugh.
 [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION] [MENTION=35705]Phoenall[/MENTION] [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

I wonder if your allies in the forum will finally condemn your racist calls for ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what he wrote and see that it is his opinion, and as such is not open to question. You on the other hand spout NAZI HATRED straight from the hate sites, and then deflect when shown to be doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criticising Israel does not equal "Nazi hatred".
> 
> It is attitudes like yours that leads to hated and animosity towards Israel and Israelis.
> 
> If you want to know why many people around the world dislike Israel, read your posts and look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

The Jews - and the Israelis - do not need to be liked.

Being liked is always nice, and a good thing to have, but it's not necessary.

What IS necessary is survival - form a sustainable, militarily defensible position.

Which is why they do what they do.

Entirely understandable.

And an awesome and marvelous demonstration of self-restraint on their part.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore; _et al,_
> 
> First, let's recognize that we agree on this minor point.  The UNSCOP, UNPC, the Mandatory, etc, were the representatives having the *responsibility of Trusteeship* over the territory in question; not an "external interference."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but they had no authority to violate the Palestinians right to self determination.
> 
> If they assisted like the LoN Covenant stated that would be perfectly legal. But they did not assist, they interfered which is illegal.
> 
> If is not necessarily who they were but what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now let's understand that the UNPC, as the Successor Government, inherits the powers to entrust to a Mandatory, to include the authority to establish "such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Principal Allied Powers which transferred by charter (CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM) to the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
> 
> Under General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the implementation by the UNPC, there was a Partition Plan established _("within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the them")_ that would allow both the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee to effectively exercise their rights of self-determination.  The Jewish Agency accepted their apportionment and the Arab Higher Committee rejected their apportionment, opting for conflict.
> 
> The UN _et al_, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.  It was the Arab Palestinian that chose another option.
> 
> *(EPILOG - THE PALESTINIAN POSITION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the issue, strictly from a Arab-Palestinian perspective, one can see that eventually, the Arab-Palestinian altered their path and chose to recognize General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and exercise their right of self-determination.
> 
> Are you disputing this history (as recorded by the Arab Palestinian)?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN et al, in no way obstructed the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right of self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.
Click to expand...





No as it was an either/or open ended resolution. It did not say that if one party refused the plan was scrapped. What it did say was either party could accept and the plan would be implemented.
 The Palestinians have since realised that they have lost far too much by fighting and now want a return to 1948 because they feel strong enough to beat Israel in a war, as long as the odds are stacked in their favour. The problem is UN res 242 that overrules 181 and grants Israel part of Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians rejected the partition plan that they had the right to do. Anything after that to implement the plan was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Israel declaring independence was perfectly legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.
Click to expand...




 In may 1948 it was, then the arab armies invaded and tried to wipe out the Jews. Since that time the borders of Israel have been liquid, apart from the ones mutually agreed between Egypt and Jordan which are now legally binding.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> The Jews - and the Israelis - do not need to be liked.
> 
> Being liked is always nice, and a good thing to have, but it's not necessary.
> 
> What IS necessary is survival - form a sustainable, militarily defensible position.
> 
> Which is why they do what they do.
> 
> Entirely understandable.
> 
> And an awesome and marvelous demonstration of self-restraint on their part.



Israel is desperate to be loved.  They cry every day about boycotts and divestment.

They cry every day about how unfair the world is to poor Israel.

And if they are boycotted and kicked out of the UN for engaging in massive ethnic cleansing, they will cry some more about how "unfairly" they are being treated.

And the world will laugh cause they will have finally caught on to Israel's game.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they say that state was? A state should be inside their defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, *Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine*. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plan is meaningless. The plan never happened.
> 
> A state can be declared by a people inside their own defined territory.
> 
> Where was that?
Click to expand...




 As defined by the map of the partition plan, that lasted until the arab armies invaded Israel and tried ti wipe out the Jews. Now the borders of Israel are those mutually agreed with Egypt and Jordan and the armistice/ceasefire lines between Syria and Lebanon. Palestine has no borders with Israel until it negotiates them.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> As defined by the map of the partition plan, that lasted until the arab armies invaded Israel and tried ti wipe out the Jews. Now the borders of Israel are those mutually agreed with Egypt and Jordan and the armistice/ceasefire lines between Syria and Lebanon. Palestine has no borders with Israel until it negotiates them.



The United Nations last year recognized Palestine as a non-member state.

This state was declared in 1988 and its borders are the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank.

The United Nations considers all of the West Bank to be Occupied Territory, which it is.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

Well, it is both.



Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the map of the partition plan, that lasted until the arab armies invaded Israel and tried ti wipe out the Jews. Now the borders of Israel are those mutually agreed with Egypt and Jordan and the armistice/ceasefire lines between Syria and Lebanon. Palestine has no borders with Israel until it negotiates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations last year recognized Palestine as a non-member state.
> 
> This state was declared in 1988 and its borders are the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank.
> 
> The United Nations considers all of the West Bank to be Occupied Territory, which it is.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is occupied territory in the State of Palestine.  It is part of the Article V - Oslo Accord (I) in which (Para 3):  "It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."  It is pending "the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Friendlies prefer the term 'Population Transfer'.
> 
> As in the massive 'transfer' of Jewish populations from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe.
> 
> 'Humanity' didn't do diddly-squat for the Jews when the Jews were being 'ethnically cleansed' or 'transferred' from their European homes into ghettos and camps...
> 
> 'Humanity' didn't do diddly-squat for the Jews when the Muslim-Arabs were kicking them or pressuring them out of one Muslim country after another in the 1948-1975 timeframe...
> 
> What makes you think 'Humanity' is going to do diddly-squate when the Jews finally turn the tables and evict and expel a couple of million hostiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you and Israel are willing to suffer world-wide boycott and total paraia status, be my guest. Just don't cry about "anti-Semitism" when it happens because the world will laugh.
Click to expand...

I have no stake in that. It's entirely their call. I'm sure they'll be adequately prepared and weather the consequences, until the world (quickly) forgets about it and relents in whatever lightweight and negligible wrist-slap that it determines upon.



> "..._I wonder if your allies in the forum will finally condemn your racist calls for ethnic cleansing._"


Which long-standing pro-Palestinian troll - and newly manifested sock puppet - are you again? I forget. You presume far too much for a genuine 'new' poster. I have no 'allies', although I do have colleagues, including yourself.

If I was being racist, I would advocate for the expulsion of all Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel, as well as the hostile populations in the West Bank and Gaza, and there is no evidence of that here. Nice try. Not.

Such 'cleansing' is more like the eviction and expulsion of a hostile population, rather than simply slaughtering them, which would be a true 'crime against humanity' in the classic sense.

And, given that Arab-Muslim countries of the region expelled and pressured the departure of the better part of 1,000,000 Jews from their own soil in the 1948-1975 timeframe, and for no better reason than their religious confession, rather than the Jews suicide-bombing them and launching large-scale rocket-barrages at them - well, the Jews have shown marvelous restraint, by comparison, and would be doing less, and with far greater provocation, than that associated with the Ethnic Cleansing of Jews from Arab countries durign that timeframe. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As to your obvoius ploy of 'divide and conquer', well... good luck with that, junior.

A little too sophomoric for my taste, but that's just me.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the map of the partition plan, that lasted until the arab armies invaded Israel and tried ti wipe out the Jews. Now the borders of Israel are those mutually agreed with Egypt and Jordan and the armistice/ceasefire lines between Syria and Lebanon. Palestine has no borders with Israel until it negotiates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations last year recognized Palestine as a non-member state. This state was declared in 1988 and its borders are the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank. The United Nations considers all of the West Bank to be Occupied Territory, which it is.
Click to expand...

Machts nichts.

Means nothing.

A great many so-called States have materialized, and some even recognized by the UN in whole or in part, only to collapse or die, and slide off the map.

Palestine will be joining the list of Defunct States at some point in the not-too-distant future.

It is non-viable... and will not survive on its own, once removed from life support.

Best to pull the plug and let it expire sooner rather than later, so that the world can get on with far more important matters.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews - and the Israelis - do not need to be liked.
> 
> Being liked is always nice, and a good thing to have, but it's not necessary.
> 
> What IS necessary is survival - form a sustainable, militarily defensible position.
> 
> Which is why they do what they do.
> 
> Entirely understandable.
> 
> And an awesome and marvelous demonstration of self-restraint on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is desperate to be loved.  They cry every day about boycotts and divestment.
> 
> They cry every day about how unfair the world is to poor Israel.
> 
> And if they are boycotted and kicked out of the UN for engaging in massive ethnic cleansing, they will cry some more about how "unfairly" they are being treated.
> 
> And the world will laugh cause they will have finally caught on to Israel's game.
Click to expand...

Any more input on this from anybody else on the Palestinian cheerleading squad?


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Which long-standing pro-Palestinian troll - and newly manifested sock puppet - are you again? I forget. You presume far too much for a genuine 'new' poster. I have no 'allies', although I do have colleagues, including yourself.
> 
> If I was being racist, I would advocte for the expulsion of all Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel, as well as the hostile populations in the West Bank and Gaza, and there is no evidence of that here. Nice try. Not.



So because you only want to commit a crime against humanity against the people of the West Bank, you're not a racist?  That would be an interesting argument to make at The Hague.   Hopefully I can get a seat and watch the proceedings.  Will be the best show since the Eichmann trial.

As far as being a "troll", you and others have been desperately trolling me for days on end with nonstop taunts and vicious attacks.  Its been an educating experience for me though as I now understand why people throughout the world who have no history of anti-Semitism whatsover, HATE Israelis.

Now its clear as a bell.  Crystal clear.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which long-standing pro-Palestinian troll - and newly manifested sock puppet - are you again? I forget. You presume far too much for a genuine 'new' poster. I have no 'allies', although I do have colleagues, including yourself.
> 
> If I was being racist, I would advocte for the expulsion of all Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel, as well as the hostile populations in the West Bank and Gaza, and there is no evidence of that here. Nice try. Not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._So because you only want to commit a crime against humanity against the people of the West Bank_..."
Click to expand...

The moment you get the Hague to put the Muslim-Arab perpetrators of Jewish Expulsion from Muslim Countries on trial for Crimes Against Humanity, you'll get better traction with that cheap dime-store tactic.



> "..._you're not a racist?_..."


There are MANY ways in which someone can commit a crime against humanity without being a racist.

Example: Nazi leadership was charged with initiating unprovoked aggressive war and the specifications referenced a crime against humanity, without regard to racism.

Example: Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Bashar Assad of Syria have utilized gas weapons against their own civilian populations - a crime against humanity - which has zero to do with racism.

And those are just two examples that come to mind on a moment's notice.

Nice try, though.

Not.



> "..._That would be an interesting argument to make at The Hague_..."


Argument already made here-and-now, and successfully put to rest.



> "..._Hopefully I can get a seat and watch the proceedings.Will be the best show since the Eichmann trial._"


Bring a book. You're in for a long wait.



> "..._As far as being a 'troll', you and others have been desperately trolling me for days on end with nonstop taunts and vicious attacks_..."


Feel free to serve-up an example of me viciously attacking you - initiating hostilities - at your discretion.



> "..._Its been an educating experience for me though as I now understand why people throughout the world who have no history of anti-Semitism whatsover, HATE Israelis. Now its clear as a bell.  Crystal clear._"


You're not fooling anybody, you know...


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews - and the Israelis - do not need to be liked.
> 
> Being liked is always nice, and a good thing to have, but it's not necessary.
> 
> What IS necessary is survival - form a sustainable, militarily defensible position.
> 
> Which is why they do what they do.
> 
> Entirely understandable.
> 
> And an awesome and marvelous demonstration of self-restraint on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is desperate to be loved.  They cry every day about boycotts and divestment.
> 
> They cry every day about how unfair the world is to poor Israel.
> 
> And if they are boycotted and kicked out of the UN for engaging in massive ethnic cleansing, they will cry some more about how "unfairly" they are being treated.
> 
> And the world will laugh cause they will have finally caught on to Israel's game.
Click to expand...


LOL You have it all mixed up. Not surprising though, as it appears that you are another victim of Palestinian/Arab propaganda.

It's the Palestinians who are whining and crying daily that Israel is unfair to them.

It's the Palestinian supporters who are crying and whining that Israel is unfair to the Palestinians

What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature. 
You reap what you sow .

The world can laugh all they want, but Israel has their country, the Palestinians don't. Israel is in control, the Palestinians aren't.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, it is both.
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the map of the partition plan, that lasted until the arab armies invaded Israel and tried ti wipe out the Jews. Now the borders of Israel are those mutually agreed with Egypt and Jordan and the armistice/ceasefire lines between Syria and Lebanon. Palestine has no borders with Israel until it negotiates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations last year recognized Palestine as a non-member state.
> 
> This state was declared in 1988 and its borders are the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank.
> 
> The United Nations considers all of the West Bank to be Occupied Territory, which it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is occupied territory in the State of Palestine.  It is part of the Article V - Oslo Accord (I) in which (Para 3):  "It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."  It is pending "the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Which will be when hell freezes over. There is no intention of a peace agreement.

It is just a dog and pony show.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._There is no intention of a peace agreement_..."


On either side.



> "..._It is just a dog and pony show._"


Agreed.


----------



## montelatici

"What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature. 
You reap what you sow ."

You don't think that the fact that the Jews dispossessed the Christians and Muslims of their land and homeland might have just a little bit to do with it?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews - and the Israelis - do not need to be liked.
> 
> Being liked is always nice, and a good thing to have, but it's not necessary.
> 
> What IS necessary is survival - form a sustainable, militarily defensible position.
> 
> Which is why they do what they do.
> 
> Entirely understandable.
> 
> And an awesome and marvelous demonstration of self-restraint on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is desperate to be loved.  They cry every day about boycotts and divestment.
> 
> They cry every day about how unfair the world is to poor Israel.
> 
> And if they are boycotted and kicked out of the UN for engaging in massive ethnic cleansing, they will cry some more about how "unfairly" they are being treated.
> 
> And the world will laugh cause they will have finally caught on to Israel's game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL You have it all mixed up. Not surprising though, as it appears that you are another victim of Palestinian/Arab propaganda.
> 
> It's the Palestinians who are whining and crying daily that Israel is unfair to them.
> 
> It's the Palestinian supporters who are crying and whining that Israel is unfair to the Palestinians
> 
> What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature.
> You reap what you sow .
> 
> The world can laugh all they want, but Israel has their country, the Palestinians don't. Israel is in control, the Palestinians aren't.
Click to expand...


As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.

Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...

Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> _As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing._


Stop it, pbel, yer scarin' everybody...


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._There is no intention of a peace agreement_..."
> 
> 
> 
> On either side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._It is just a dog and pony show._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...


Very true. But the sad part is that there are many many people on both sides who actually believe that there might be an agreement reached from these peace talks. 

False hope.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing._
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it, pbel, yer scarin' everybody...
Click to expand...


When Israel and Saudi Arabia team up against the jihadists and Shias, fear is on their collective minds...


----------



## montelatici

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing._
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it, pbel, yer scarin' everybody...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Israel and Saudi Arabia team up against the jihadists and Shias, fear is on their collective minds...
Click to expand...


I think Saudi Arabia's royal autocrats are probably the ones afraid.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is desperate to be loved.  They cry every day about boycotts and divestment.
> 
> They cry every day about how unfair the world is to poor Israel.
> 
> And if they are boycotted and kicked out of the UN for engaging in massive ethnic cleansing, they will cry some more about how "unfairly" they are being treated.
> 
> And the world will laugh cause they will have finally caught on to Israel's game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You have it all mixed up. Not surprising though, as it appears that you are another victim of Palestinian/Arab propaganda.
> 
> It's the Palestinians who are whining and crying daily that Israel is unfair to them.
> 
> It's the Palestinian supporters who are crying and whining that Israel is unfair to the Palestinians
> 
> What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature.
> You reap what you sow .
> 
> The world can laugh all they want, but Israel has their country, the Palestinians don't. Israel is in control, the Palestinians aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing.
Click to expand...


What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?



Are you saying the long discussed "demographic threat" is a fable?


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the long discussed "demographic threat" is a fable?
Click to expand...


Israel has a population of 8 million and she is surrounded by over a billion Arabs. So what;s your point ?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the long discussed "demographic threat" is a fable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has a population of 8 million and she is surrounded by over a billion Arabs. So what;s your point ?
Click to expand...


There are a little more than a billion Muslims, how can there be a billion "Arabs".  Which is a cultural and linguistic distinction only.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You have it all mixed up. Not surprising though, as it appears that you are another victim of Palestinian/Arab propaganda.
> 
> It's the Palestinians who are whining and crying daily that Israel is unfair to them.
> 
> It's the Palestinian supporters who are crying and whining that Israel is unfair to the Palestinians
> 
> What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature.
> You reap what you sow .
> 
> The world can laugh all they want, but Israel has their country, the Palestinians don't. Israel is in control, the Palestinians aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?
Click to expand...


its not numbers its the proliferation of WMD's and the potential that they will be used. If the next 68 years in Israel are like the last 68, what do you think?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the map of the partition plan, that lasted until the arab armies invaded Israel and tried ti wipe out the Jews. Now the borders of Israel are those mutually agreed with Egypt and Jordan and the armistice/ceasefire lines between Syria and Lebanon. Palestine has no borders with Israel until it negotiates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations last year recognized Palestine as a non-member state.
> 
> This state was declared in 1988 and its borders are the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank.
> 
> The United Nations considers all of the West Bank to be Occupied Territory, which it is.
Click to expand...






Read 242 and 338 and see what they say about its borders. It was offered borders in 1948 which it refused, now 65 years later after seeing land whittled away by successive wars against Israel it wants to take up the 1948 borders. They are 65 years too late and have lost those borders now, they could get lucky and get the 1973 ceasefire lines and be grateful. But until they rescind their charter they will not get any right of return


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, it is both.
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations last year recognized Palestine as a non-member state.
> 
> This state was declared in 1988 and its borders are the Gaza Strip and all of the West Bank.
> 
> The United Nations considers all of the West Bank to be Occupied Territory, which it is.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is occupied territory in the State of Palestine.  It is part of the Article V - Oslo Accord (I) in which (Para 3):  "It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."  It is pending "the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which will be when hell freezes over. There is no intention of a peace agreement.
> 
> It is just a dog and pony show.
Click to expand...





 And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace, which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> "What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature.
> You reap what you sow ."
> 
> You don't think that the fact that the Jews dispossessed the Christians and Muslims of their land and homeland might have just a little bit to do with it?





How so when it was the muslims that have and are dispossessing Jews and Christians of their land, and have done since 630 C.E.

Now the shoe is on the other foot they are bleating about how unfair it is for them to be treated in the same manner as they treated others. In gaza the Christians  are being ethnically cleansed because the muslims want only a muslim zone to exist


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace,


Since Israel has constructed over 500 of them restricting the movement of Palestinian's in the West Bank and the Pals have constructed none,  I'd say the "obstacles" are Israel's.



Phoenall said:


> which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.


There's no reason to meet and nothing to negotiate.  Israel needs to comply with International Law.  That's it!  Stop breaking the god-damn law and get the fuck off land that isn't yours.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Every time I see this post on the active post list I think it says "I Will Not Bowl". And I wonder what the heck does he have against bowling?


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> How so when it was the muslims that have and are dispossessing Jews and Christians of their land, and have done since 630 C.E.
> 
> Now the shoe is on the other foot they are bleating about how unfair it is for them to be treated in the same manner as they treated others. In gaza the Christians  are being ethnically cleansed because the muslims want only a muslim zone to exist


Where's your proof of that?


----------



## Billo_Really

SmedlyButler said:


> Every time I see this post on the active post list I think it says "I Will Not Bowl". And I wonder what the heck does he have against bowling?


He has issues with Dick Weber.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is desperate to be loved.  They cry every day about boycotts and divestment.
> 
> They cry every day about how unfair the world is to poor Israel.
> 
> And if they are boycotted and kicked out of the UN for engaging in massive ethnic cleansing, they will cry some more about how "unfairly" they are being treated.
> 
> And the world will laugh cause they will have finally caught on to Israel's game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You have it all mixed up. Not surprising though, as it appears that you are another victim of Palestinian/Arab propaganda.
> 
> It's the Palestinians who are whining and crying daily that Israel is unfair to them.
> 
> It's the Palestinian supporters who are crying and whining that Israel is unfair to the Palestinians
> 
> What they both forget to mention is that the situation that the Palestinians are in is a DIRECT result of their war mongering and hateful nature.
> You reap what you sow .
> 
> The world can laugh all they want, but Israel has their country, the Palestinians don't. Israel is in control, the Palestinians aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing.
Click to expand...





The Israeli's can execute laws that expel islamists from the country and it will not be illegal. The world will not allow all the rogue states in the M.E. to have nuclear weapons, and will target every Islamic centre with their own. 2 billion people fried in one attack by the wests nuclear arsenal will put the brakes on any intentions of using nuclear weapons. Then there is the simple matter of expelling all muslims from the west as aggressive aliens, those that refuse interned till the end of hostilities in segregated camps. Stopping all trade with the likes of Saudi which relies on food from the west would soon see the islamists back down their holes when the starving millions started dying in the streets.

 Remember at the end of the day islam need the west more than the west needs islam


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing._
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it, pbel, yer scarin' everybody...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Israel and Saudi Arabia team up against the jihadists and Shias, fear is on their collective minds...
Click to expand...





 My money is on Israel, Jordan and Egypt forming a tripartite military group that will speed to were ever Islamic extremism raises its head and wipe it out at a stroke. The Palestinians would be amongst the first to receive the blessings of such a force, and they would fall back to being peaceful in double quick order.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> The Israeli's can execute laws that expel islamists from the country and it will not be illegal. The world will not allow all the rogue states in the M.E. to have nuclear weapons, and will target every Islamic centre with their own. 2 billion people fried in one attack by the wests nuclear arsenal will put the brakes on any intentions of using nuclear weapons. Then there is the simple matter of expelling all muslims from the west as aggressive aliens, those that refuse interned till the end of hostilities in segregated camps. Stopping all trade with the likes of Saudi which relies on food from the west would soon see the islamists back down their holes when the starving millions started dying in the streets.
> 
> Remember at the end of the day islam need the west more than the west needs islam


You make a good German.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it, pbel, yer scarin' everybody...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel and Saudi Arabia team up against the jihadists and Shias, fear is on their collective minds...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Saudi Arabia's royal autocrats are probably the ones afraid.
Click to expand...




 They can afford to leave and buy an island in the Caribbean, the islamists cant afford to have their food and water supplies cut of. Oil wells are great while they are pumping oil, once they stop they are just scrap metal. You cant sell oil while it is 10 miles underground and rotting away..


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the long discussed "demographic threat" is a fable?
Click to expand...







How many times have the hostile arabs tried to destroy Israel and failed, and they were always outnumbering the Jews at least 1,000 to 1. The arabs can breed like flies all they want it will just end up with more dead arabs from starvation, disease and overcrowding. They will never be a valid threat because they don't have the firepower of discipline needed to engage in all out war. Which country in the M.E. will take in the surplus population when they themselves are overpopulated and suffering the same problems.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the long discussed "demographic threat" is a fable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has a population of 8 million and she is surrounded by over a billion Arabs. So what;s your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a little more than a billion Muslims, how can there be a billion "Arabs".  Which is a cultural and linguistic distinction only.
Click to expand...




The world population of muslims is believed to be in the region of 2.2 billion and growing by 3% a year. This is why they are migrating to the west to relieve the pressure on their own countries. The biggest majority of muslims reside in Arabic areas and is believed to be 1.2 billion. These areas can not sustain their own populations and they must import basic foods to survive. We are fast approaching saturation point and food will become scarce outside of the food producing nations leading to widescale famine and civil wars until nature has once more redressed the balance. The answer is to impose a worldwide birth control programme that sets a limit on how many children a family can have, and details the punishments for non compliance.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you and your friends of the "Israel can do no wrong club," are short sighted...The ME has changed, changed dramatically...The Arab Spring has brought the centuries of festering wounds of the haves and have not's to the surface...Every election has been won by Islamists...Even Saudi Arabia fears her home-grown Islamists.
> 
> Israel in the next century will never contain Islam's numbers Sampson will look like Mickey Mouse in a hundred years to a nuclear armed ME...
> 
> Remember that in these phony peace talks by the Israeli Right Wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its not numbers its the proliferation of WMD's and the potential that they will be used. If the next 68 years in Israel are like the last 68, what do you think?
Click to expand...






And the first one used will see WW3 breakout, and your muslim friends facing extinction. There will be no more playing by the book and following the rules of war, it will be just a bloodbath with anyone as a target. You can forget International law and the Geneva conventions until after the conflict. and then the victors will impose their revenge on islam and execute the muslim leaders left alive. Then the M.E will be carved up by the west and martial law imposed, leaving Israel as an oasis of prosperity surrounded by death and destruction.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace,
> 
> 
> 
> Since Israel has constructed over 500 of them restricting the movement of Palestinian's in the West Bank and the Pals have constructed none,  I'd say the "obstacles" are Israel's.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no reason to meet and nothing to negotiate.  Israel needs to comply with International Law.  That's it!  Stop breaking the god-damn law and get the fuck off land that isn't yours.
Click to expand...





Two things to consider the settlements have been shown to be built on actual JEWISH OWNED land by peacenow who LIED to racially demonise Israel. What International Law id Israel not complying with, and we need actual words from International law. They are in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the right of return, or are you another NAZI JEW HATER  that thinks the right of return does not apply to the 1 million Jews forcibly expelled from their land in 1948/1949 ?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so when it was the muslims that have and are dispossessing Jews and Christians of their land, and have done since 630 C.E.
> 
> Now the shoe is on the other foot they are bleating about how unfair it is for them to be treated in the same manner as they treated others. In gaza the Christians  are being ethnically cleansed because the muslims want only a muslim zone to exist
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof of that?
Click to expand...






The Koran and hadiths that spell out how the muslims must kill the Jews and Christians and expel them from the land. Then recent history that shows how the population of Jews and Christians have been decimated in Islamic nations over the last 200 years. Then the reports coming out of gaza by the fleeing Christians who tell of the treatment by the muslims

Persecution of Palestinian Christians By Palestinian Muslims

Israel a Haven for Christians Amid Islamic Persecution in Middle East - Religion Today Blog

The truth about Islamic persecution of Christians all round the world.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's can execute laws that expel islamists from the country and it will not be illegal. The world will not allow all the rogue states in the M.E. to have nuclear weapons, and will target every Islamic centre with their own. 2 billion people fried in one attack by the wests nuclear arsenal will put the brakes on any intentions of using nuclear weapons. Then there is the simple matter of expelling all muslims from the west as aggressive aliens, those that refuse interned till the end of hostilities in segregated camps. Stopping all trade with the likes of Saudi which relies on food from the west would soon see the islamists back down their holes when the starving millions started dying in the streets.
> 
> Remember at the end of the day islam need the west more than the west needs islam
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good German.
Click to expand...





Because I am a pragmatist who sees the solutions that others are too scared to voice. Can your country expel islamists and if so why deny the same rights to Israel
Would you feel safe if the rogue states in the M.E. had nuclear weapons, and would you expect the USA to take action against them if they did
Don't you think that the USA and the other western powers should be allowed to protect their citizens from potential attacks
As enemies they can be expelled or interned, just as the Germans, Italians and Japanese were during WW2.
Yet you see no problem in stopping all trade and diplomacy with Israel because they are JOOOOOS.....


As I said the muslims need the west more that the west needs muslims


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you and thinking that the growing number of Arabs will be Israels demise?? Israel is already surrounded by over a billion of them, and none of them are doing anything. You think if there's another 500 million, it will make a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not numbers its the proliferation of WMD's and the potential that they will be used. If the next 68 years in Israel are like the last 68, what do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the first one used will see WW3 breakout, and your muslim friends facing extinction. There will be no more playing by the book and following the rules of war, it will be just a bloodbath with anyone as a target. You can forget International law and the Geneva conventions until after the conflict. and then the victors will impose their revenge on islam and execute the muslim leaders left alive. Then the M.E will be carved up by the west and martial law imposed, leaving Israel as an oasis of prosperity surrounded by death and destruction.
Click to expand...


Yes, a war might start, but there won't be anyone siding with the Israeli State...world polls show that it is the most disliked nation on planet earth.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> its not numbers its the proliferation of WMD's and the potential that they will be used. If the next 68 years in Israel are like the last 68, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the first one used will see WW3 breakout, and your muslim friends facing extinction. There will be no more playing by the book and following the rules of war, it will be just a bloodbath with anyone as a target. You can forget International law and the Geneva conventions until after the conflict. and then the victors will impose their revenge on islam and execute the muslim leaders left alive. Then the M.E will be carved up by the west and martial law imposed, leaving Israel as an oasis of prosperity surrounded by death and destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a war might start, but there won't be anyone siding with the Israeli State...world polls show that it is the most disliked nation on planet earth.
Click to expand...

In any extremely unlikely Ultimate Showdown between Israel and Islam...

The Americans will side with Israel...

The Germans will side with Israel...

The French will side with Israel...

The British will side with Israel...

That will be enough...


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Because I am a pragmatist who sees the solutions that others are too scared to voice.


Hitler felt the same way.




Phoenall said:


> Can your country expel islamists and if so why deny the same rights to Israel


I don't think we should be expelling people over a particular way they choose to worship, or what name they  call God.




Phoenall said:


> Would you feel safe if the rogue states in the M.E. had nuclear weapons, and would you expect the USA to take action against them if they did


Israel has nuclear weapons and if they use them, yes, I would expect us to take action against them.

Anyone smart enough to build "the bomb", is also smart enough to know if they use that "bomb", their country will glow in the dark.




Phoenall said:


> Don't you think that the USA and the other western powers should be allowed to protect their citizens from potential attacks


Attacks against our country, not when we're in someone else's.  That's not an attack, it's resistance.



Phoenall said:


> As enemies they can be expelled or interned, just as the Germans, Italians and Japanese were during WW2.


That's one of my points!

The Israeli's treat the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews.



Phoenall said:


> Yet you see no problem in stopping all trade and diplomacy with Israel because they are JOOOOOS.....


You and your ilk are doing everything you can to make this a religious issue.  I'm sorry, but it's not.  This has nothing to do with Judaism.  Yet you constantly try to go there.  It's like a crutch.  You want people to hate jews.  If people don't hate jews, you can't deal with life.  "Jew hate" is like a friend to you.  



Phoenall said:


> As I said the muslims need the west more that the west needs muslims


I could care less.  They have nothing to do with my daily life.  The same goes for jews.  For Buddhists, Hindu's and Tom Cruise's Scientology bunch.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the first one used will see WW3 breakout, and your muslim friends facing extinction. There will be no more playing by the book and following the rules of war, it will be just a bloodbath with anyone as a target. You can forget International law and the Geneva conventions until after the conflict. and then the victors will impose their revenge on islam and execute the muslim leaders left alive. Then the M.E will be carved up by the west and martial law imposed, leaving Israel as an oasis of prosperity surrounded by death and destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a war might start, but there won't be anyone siding with the Israeli State...world polls show that it is the most disliked nation on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In any extremely unlikely Ultimate Showdown between Israel and Islam...
> 
> The Americans will side with Israel...
> 
> The Germans will side with Israel...
> 
> The French will side with Israel...
> 
> The British will side with Israel...
> 
> That will be enough...
Click to expand...


We have seen this scene before in its obscured simplicity...The French just voted for a Palestinian State, the English abstained, Can't imagine the Holocaust provider Germans helping, and America today has turned Liberal...In a hundred years Israel will be fighting everyone as it does today...

https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
ANNEX


Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations


The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d&#8217;Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People&#8217;s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.


Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Ukraine.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._We have seen this scene before in its obscured simplicity_..."


In connection with such future prospects and speculation, one of the differences between you and I is that you seem to lean heavily upon the fickle twists and turns of the most recent developments, such as much of The West granting Palestine observer status, temporarily having a Liberal in the White House, etc., while I lean more heavily upon long-term patterns of manifested behaviors and largely ignore the trend du jour or development du jour, while keeping a watchful eye on them myself. You and I see such prospects and speculative outcomes in vastly different lights. As to your comments about the Germans not helping the Israelis, you may do well to more closely study the close and intimate relationship that now exists between Germany and Israel. You may be in for a surprise.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Two things to consider the settlements have been shown to be built on actual JEWISH OWNED land by peacenow who LIED to racially demonise Israel. What International Law id Israel not complying with, and we need actual words from International law. They are in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the right of return, or are you another NAZI JEW HATER  that thinks the right of return does not apply to the 1 million Jews forcibly expelled from their land in 1948/1949 ?



There is no evidence that the settlements are built on Jewish private property.

Are you calling for all the Middle East Jews to be allowed to return to their former homes in the Muslim nations?  I agree, we should allow that.  It will reduce the number of Israelis by maybe 3 million.  Your idea is a good one.  

You should stop calling everyone you disagree with a "Nazi Jew Hater".  It insults true victims of anti-Semitism and survivors & victims of the Holocaust.  It makes the label "anti-Semite" look like a mere political tool.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> The Israeli's can execute laws that expel islamists from the country and it will not be illegal. The world will not allow all the rogue states in the M.E. to have nuclear weapons, and will target every Islamic centre with their own. 2 billion people fried in one attack by the wests nuclear arsenal will put the brakes on any intentions of using nuclear weapons. Then there is the simple matter of expelling all muslims from the west as aggressive aliens, those that refuse interned till the end of hostilities in segregated camps. Stopping all trade with the likes of Saudi which relies on food from the west would soon see the islamists back down their holes when the starving millions started dying in the streets.
> 
> Remember at the end of the day islam need the west more than the west needs islam



If Israel can do that, than it was ok for the Muslim nations to expel their Jews as they were Zionist agents.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> How so when it was the muslims that have and are dispossessing Jews and Christians of their land, and have done since 630 C.E.
> 
> Now the shoe is on the other foot they are bleating about how unfair it is for them to be treated in the same manner as they treated others. In gaza the Christians  are being ethnically cleansed because the muslims want only a muslim zone to exist



The Muslims conquered Palestine and took the land as spoils of war.  Just as the Israelis did it in 1948.  

All's fair in love and war.  Except the Muslims weren't bound by the 4th Geneva Conventions in 630 AD but the Israelis were in 1967.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

I think we are straying from the topic.



Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's can execute laws that expel islamists from the country and it will not be illegal. The world will not allow all the rogue states in the M.E. to have nuclear weapons, and will target every Islamic centre with their own. 2 billion people fried in one attack by the wests nuclear arsenal will put the brakes on any intentions of using nuclear weapons. Then there is the simple matter of expelling all muslims from the west as aggressive aliens, those that refuse interned till the end of hostilities in segregated camps. Stopping all trade with the likes of Saudi which relies on food from the west would soon see the islamists back down their holes when the starving millions started dying in the streets.
> 
> Remember at the end of the day islam need the west more than the west needs islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel can do that, than it was ok for the Muslim nations to expel their Jews as they were Zionist agents.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

With the exception of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, there is really no country in the Middle East that is stable enough to be trusted with WMD.

It is unreasonable to assume that the nations of the world would not be extremely concerned if evidence came to their attention that a country like Lebanon - which support Hezbollah Terrorists, Syria - in total chaos, Palestine - which supports Jihadist and Fedayeen calling for genocide, and other unstable regional governments, assembling WMD (especially nuclear).  

What is the point being made here?  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, it is both.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is occupied territory in the State of Palestine.  It is part of the Article V - Oslo Accord (I) in which (Para 3):  "It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest."  It is pending "the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Which will be when hell freezes over. There is no intention of a peace agreement.
> 
> It is just a dog and pony show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace, which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
Click to expand...


Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.

It is hard to get that pig to fly.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which will be when hell freezes over. There is no intention of a peace agreement.
> 
> It is just a dog and pony show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace, which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing. 

It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that


----------



## IlarMeilyr

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which will be when hell freezes over. There is no intention of a peace agreement.
> 
> It is just a dog and pony show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace, which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
Click to expand...


^ totally dishonest post.

Typical of Pinhead, however.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace, which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
Click to expand...


Why? If they surrender, they lose.

They haven't lost yet.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
Click to expand...


You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.

What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
Click to expand...


Oh, I get it.
In your mind, when the defendant gets the chair and is escorted out of the courtroom screaming, "I didn't do it!", the defendant is not guilty.

Wow!  We wouldn't need a justice system!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.
> 
> What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand
Click to expand...


Well, the Palestinians need to surrender. They have not formed a consensus on that.

Israel is claiming victory before the end of the conflict. That is one of the points that I have been making. Israel claims that it has won land in war but they have not won anything yet.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.
> 
> What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Palestinians need to surrender. They have not formed a consensus on that.
> 
> Israel is claiming victory before the end of the conflict. That is one of the points that I have been making. Israel claims that it has won land in war but they have not won anything yet.
Click to expand...


LOL What are you talking about ?? They DID win land in a war, and now that land is inside the green line, making it their land Tinmore. How do you not know this????

*Territorial
changes 	Israel keeps area allotted to it by Partition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state*

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.
> 
> What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Palestinians need to surrender. They have not formed a consensus on that.
> 
> Israel is claiming victory before the end of the conflict. That is one of the points that I have been making. Israel claims that it has won land in war but they have not won anything yet.
Click to expand...


Strawman...they don't officially surrender so they didn't lose!
If I were Israel's PM, I would use your posting to deposit them in Jordan.
Then they would be executed and I can blame it on you.
What an A-hole!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.
> 
> What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Palestinians need to surrender. They have not formed a consensus on that.
> 
> Israel is claiming victory before the end of the conflict. That is one of the points that I have been making. Israel claims that it has won land in war but they have not won anything yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL What are you talking about ?? They DID win land in a war, and now that land is inside the green line, making it their land Tinmore. How do you not know this????
> 
> *Territorial
> changes 	Israel keeps area allotted to it by Partition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state*
> 
> 1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


How does that conflict with what I said?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Palestinians need to surrender. They have not formed a consensus on that.
> 
> Israel is claiming victory before the end of the conflict. That is one of the points that I have been making. Israel claims that it has won land in war but they have not won anything yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL What are you talking about ?? They DID win land in a war, and now that land is inside the green line, making it their land Tinmore. How do you not know this????
> 
> *Territorial
> changes 	Israel keeps area allotted to it by Partition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state*
> 
> 1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that conflict with what I said?
Click to expand...


Stop playing with my head Tinmore. Your lies might work with someone else, but not with me


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL What are you talking about ?? They DID win land in a war, and now that land is inside the green line, making it their land Tinmore. How do you not know this????
> 
> *Territorial
> changes 	Israel keeps area allotted to it by Partition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state*
> 
> 1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that conflict with what I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop playing with my head Tinmore. Your lies might work with someone else, but not with me
Click to expand...


Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.

I don't see where that has ever happened.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a war might start, but there won't be anyone siding with the Israeli State...world polls show that it is the most disliked nation on planet earth.
> 
> 
> 
> In any extremely unlikely Ultimate Showdown between Israel and Islam...
> 
> The Americans will side with Israel...
> 
> The Germans will side with Israel...
> 
> The French will side with Israel...
> 
> The British will side with Israel...
> 
> That will be enough...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have seen this scene before in its obscured simplicity...The French just voted for a Palestinian State, the English abstained, Can't imagine the Holocaust provider Germans helping, and America today has turned Liberal...In a hundred years Israel will be fighting everyone as it does today...
> 
> https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
> ANNEX
> 
> 
> Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations
> 
> 
> The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:
> 
> 
> In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
> 
> 
> Against:  Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.
> 
> 
> Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.
> 
> 
> Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Ukraine.
Click to expand...






 Did they as I cant find any mention in the minutes that the vote was on accepting Palestine as a state. What you have produced is nothing more than a press release of the UN accepting a delegate to the UN as an observer. It is not acceptance of Palestine as a state.

Now if Palestine wants to be a state it first has to stop all terrorist attacks and unify its own people. Then it needs to sit down and agree a mutually accepted peace and borders with Israel. Then and only then will it be accepted by the world as a sovereign nation


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that conflict with what I said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing with my head Tinmore. Your lies might work with someone else, but not with me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
Click to expand...


*yawn*  Still peddling the same crap eh??

Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Israel captured the land land during the 1948 war. This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY. Now, this land is inside the GREEN LINE. Land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel.

The whole "there are no documents showing Israel acquiring land" shtick is one of your many made up crap that you never read anywhere. 

Let me ask you this, where did you read that Israel needs documents to show they acquired that land in order for the land to be theirs ?? I would really love to know


----------



## Phoenall

SAYIT said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a little more than a billion Muslims, how can there be a billion "Arabs".  Which is a cultural and linguistic distinction only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world population of muslims is believed to be in the region of 2.2 billion and growing by 3% a year. This is why they are migrating to the west to relieve the pressure on their own countries. The biggest majority of muslims reside in Arabic areas and is believed to be 1.2 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to check those figures, particularly the Muslims residing in "Arabic areas" number.
Click to expand...






2.2 Billion: World?s Muslim Population Doubles | TIME.com


 Says the same thing


I stand corrected on the arab population which is nearer to 367 million


----------



## toastman

Once again Tinmore, here you go:


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things to consider the settlements have been shown to be built on actual JEWISH OWNED land by peacenow who LIED to racially demonise Israel. What International Law id Israel not complying with, and we need actual words from International law. They are in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the right of return, or are you another NAZI JEW HATER  that thinks the right of return does not apply to the 1 million Jews forcibly expelled from their land in 1948/1949 ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that the settlements are built on Jewish private property.
> 
> Are you calling for all the Middle East Jews to be allowed to return to their former homes in the Muslim nations?  I agree, we should allow that.  It will reduce the number of Israelis by maybe 3 million.  Your idea is a good one.
> 
> You should stop calling everyone you disagree with a "Nazi Jew Hater".  It insults true victims of anti-Semitism and survivors & victims of the Holocaust.  It makes the label "anti-Semite" look like a mere political tool.
Click to expand...





 There is no evidence to say they aren't, but the maps I have provided show that it is most likely.

Now we cant force them to go back, which is why the Geneva conventions say that they can elect to be paid for the loss of their homes. This means that Israel stays the same population wise and the Jews are granted safety. 

If you post ANTI SEMITIC lies then you will be called an ANTI SEMITE. It does not insult any victims of the holocaust or of anti Semitism as it highlights the methods used by modern day NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS and how they try and talk out of being branded for what they are.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's can execute laws that expel islamists from the country and it will not be illegal. The world will not allow all the rogue states in the M.E. to have nuclear weapons, and will target every Islamic centre with their own. 2 billion people fried in one attack by the wests nuclear arsenal will put the brakes on any intentions of using nuclear weapons. Then there is the simple matter of expelling all muslims from the west as aggressive aliens, those that refuse interned till the end of hostilities in segregated camps. Stopping all trade with the likes of Saudi which relies on food from the west would soon see the islamists back down their holes when the starving millions started dying in the streets.
> 
> Remember at the end of the day islam need the west more than the west needs islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel can do that, than it was ok for the Muslim nations to expel their Jews as they were Zionist agents.
Click to expand...






 Exactly what do you mean by the term Zionist agents, is this meant in the way a NEO NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATER would call them such. Or do you mean the accepted definition of Zionism.


 For the record the arab hostiles evicted were proven terrorists, the Jews evicted were done because of the disgrace of losing to an inferior force. It was schoolground behaviour by the muslims who had lost face.  But the muslim nations by your reckoning should be forced to now take in the refugees and give them homes and a nationality like Israel did with the Jewish refugees. That would be the refugee and right of return sorted in one stroke.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so when it was the muslims that have and are dispossessing Jews and Christians of their land, and have done since 630 C.E.
> 
> Now the shoe is on the other foot they are bleating about how unfair it is for them to be treated in the same manner as they treated others. In gaza the Christians  are being ethnically cleansed because the muslims want only a muslim zone to exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims conquered Palestine and took the land as spoils of war.  Just as the Israelis did it in 1948.
> 
> All's fair in love and war.  Except the Muslims weren't bound by the 4th Geneva Conventions in 630 AD but the Israelis were in 1967.
Click to expand...





 Bit they were in 1949 when they expelled the Jews and murdered over half of them. And if you read the UN charter land can not be gained by force so Israel did not get the land as spoils of war, but by negotiated settlements brokered by the UN who set the armistice lines


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which will be when hell freezes over. There is no intention of a peace agreement.
> 
> It is just a dog and pony show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace, which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
Click to expand...





Even harder to get the islamonazi pre conditions to be taken seriously. Right of return for 3 million people who have never lived on the land and a return to fantasy borders that have never existed.

All the Israelis are asking is for an end to belligerence and terrorism as agreed in the Oslo accords. Is it so hard for the Palestinians to abide by their word for once, and be honourable. And it is not a pre condition it is a minor part of the whole peace talks. As is the right of return for the Jews who lost land in gaza and the west bank.


----------



## montelatici

"Right of return for 3 million people who have never lived on the land"

The European Jews that settled in Palestine had never lived on the land.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's main preconditions are that the Palestinians surrender and disarm.
> 
> It is hard to get that pig to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
Click to expand...




Only two outcomes in war WIN or LOSE    Have the Palestinians ever won ?

 If they don't wind their necks in the UN will force a peace on them that will not be to their liking. The world is getting sick and tired of the Palestinians antics and will tell them to deal or face world condemnation and sanctions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing with my head Tinmore. Your lies might work with someone else, but not with me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn*  Still peddling the same crap eh??
> 
> Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Israel captured the land land during the 1948 war. This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY. Now, this land is inside the GREEN LINE. Land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel.
> 
> The whole "there are no documents showing Israel acquiring land" shtick is one of your many made up crap that you never read anywhere.
> 
> Let me ask you this, where did you read that Israel needs documents to show they acquired that land in order for the land to be theirs ?? I would really love to know
Click to expand...




> This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY.



If you are implying that this was not Palestinian land then that begs the question:

Why is it that the negotiation between Israel and Palestine over who gets what land is a final status issue. If it is not Palestinian land then why are they involved in that negotiation?


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.
> 
> What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand
Click to expand...






 What he means is they are still fighting even though they have lost every battle. Now Israel needs to inflict so much damage on them that they cant muster enough strength to burst out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying the Palestinians didn't lose yet.
> 
> What needs to happen in order for the Palestinians to 'lose' ... I really don't understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Palestinians need to surrender. They have not formed a consensus on that.
> 
> Israel is claiming victory before the end of the conflict. That is one of the points that I have been making. Israel claims that it has won land in war but they have not won anything yet.
Click to expand...






When and were has Israel made that claim, and proof from an unbiased source please.


----------



## Victory67

montelatici said:


> "Right of return for 3 million people who have never lived on the land"
> 
> The European Jews that settled in Palestine had never lived on the land.



I don't mind millions of Jews going to Israel as long as the rights of non-Jews are respected.

The British and the League of Nations must have seen a problem on the horizon when they made Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine conditional upon the full respect for non-Jewish civil & religious rights in Palestine.

Their concerns have been realized a million times over.

I wonder if the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, and the Mandate for Palestine would have happened if they could see in the future how Israel treats non-Jews in the West Bank.  Probably not.  The Jews would today be stuck in Europe, Russia, and the Muslim lands.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that conflict with what I said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing with my head Tinmore. Your lies might work with someone else, but not with me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
Click to expand...






 Egypt and Jordan for starters, then the UN armistice lines that were agreed as starting points for any future borders agreements.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians took part in the wars of 1948, 1967, 1973. They were on the losing side all three times.
> The Palestinians launched intifadas and have had many skirmishes with Israel, all resulting in ...well....nothing.
> 
> It's time the Palestinians surrender, or they won't get their state. Simple as that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If they surrender, they lose.
> 
> They haven't lost yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only two outcomes in war WIN or LOSE    Have the Palestinians ever won ?
> 
> If they don't wind their necks in the UN will force a peace on them that will not be to their liking. The world is getting sick and tired of the Palestinians antics and will tell them to deal or face world condemnation and sanctions.
Click to expand...


Actually, outside of the Americans, the world is getting sick and tired of Israel's tactics designed to make it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Heck, even the U.S. leadership (not the dummies) is beginning to figure it out.


----------



## Victory67

montelatici said:


> Actually, outside of the Americans, the world is getting sick and tired of Israel's tactics designed to make it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Heck, even the U.S. leadership (not the dummies) is beginning to figure it out.



The world wants a two state solution.  Israel and Palestine.

Israel is making this almost impossible to happen.

If the current peace talks fail, the world might aswell just start demanding the one state solution and embargo Israel until they comply.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*  Still peddling the same crap eh??
> 
> Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Israel captured the land land during the 1948 war. This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY. Now, this land is inside the GREEN LINE. Land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel.
> 
> The whole "there are no documents showing Israel acquiring land" shtick is one of your many made up crap that you never read anywhere.
> 
> Let me ask you this, where did you read that Israel needs documents to show they acquired that land in order for the land to be theirs ?? I would really love to know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are implying that this was not Palestinian land then that begs the question:
> 
> Why is it that the negotiation between Israel and Palestine over who gets what land is a final status issue. If it is not Palestinian land then why are they involved in that negotiation?
Click to expand...


That land I am talking about i NOT part of the current negotiation. It is land that some Palestinians lived on and possibly owned land on but it was not their TERRITORY. In case you forgot, they REJECTED the partition plan, which would have given them sovereignty over that land (plus more of course).

The negotiations going on now involve the 1967 borders, which would actually give the Palestinians less land then if they had accepted the partition plan.


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And which side is putting all the obstacles in the way of peace,
> 
> 
> 
> Since Israel has constructed over 500 of them restricting the movement of Palestinian's in the West Bank and the Pals have constructed none,  I'd say the "obstacles" are Israel's.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> which side is demanding illegal and unworkable pre conditions before they will even agree to meet. A clue it is not Israel which is placing negotiation points on the table as part of the peace talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no reason to meet and nothing to negotiate.  Israel needs to comply with International Law.  That's it!  Stop breaking the god-damn law and get the fuck off land that isn't yours.
Click to expand...


Jordan turned the land over to Israel.  Israel has been trying to negotiate with the palestinians to give them a state but the PA make hard line demands instead of negotiating.  Palestinians won't even recognize Israel's right to exist as a jewish state, per UN resolution.  Israel is supposed to bend over backwards and expose it's own throat to the palestinians but Abbas is not even speaking for a unit government.
Israel is expected to permit hundreds of thousands of more arabs into Israel but palestinians won't permit any jews to live in the west bank and expect a full withdrawal despite an agreement to land exchange which would leave most settlements west of the wall in Israeli hands.  Jordan wants the Jordan valley in Israeli hands.  For Israel to give up the western wall or jerusalem to the palestinians is not even thinkable.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, outside of the Americans, the world is getting sick and tired of Israel's tactics designed to make it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Heck, even the U.S. leadership (not the dummies) is beginning to figure it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world wants a two state solution.  Israel and Palestine.
> 
> Israel is making this almost impossible to happen.
> 
> If the current peace talks fail, the world might aswell just start demanding the one state solution and embargo Israel until they comply.
Click to expand...


Actually, there won't be a one state or two state solution. 

A one state solution would mean that all the Arabs living in the West Bank AND Gaza would be part of the State of Israel. This will obviously cause massive demographic issues for Israel. Also, there are plenty of Palestinians who will still be extremely hostile towards Israel, even if they do accept the one state solution (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). Do you really expect these Palestinians to live in this ONE STATE in peace?? No. They want it all


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Actually, there won't be a one state or two state solution.
> 
> A one state solution would mean that all the Arabs living in the West Bank AND Gaza would be part of the State of Israel. This will obviously cause massive demographic issues for Israel. Also, there are plenty of Palestinians who will still be extremely hostile towards Israel, even if they do accept the one state solution (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). Do you really expect these Palestinians to live in this ONE STATE in peace?? No. They want it all



Many Israelis want it all.

Many Palestinians want it all.

Houston, we have a problem.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, outside of the Americans, the world is getting sick and tired of Israel's tactics designed to make it impossible for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Heck, even the U.S. leadership (not the dummies) is beginning to figure it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world wants a two state solution.  Israel and Palestine.
> 
> Israel is making this almost impossible to happen.
> 
> If the current peace talks fail, the world might aswell just start demanding the one state solution and embargo Israel until they comply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there won't be a one state or two state solution.
> 
> A one state solution would mean that all the Arabs living in the West Bank AND Gaza would be part of the State of Israel. This will obviously cause massive demographic issues for Israel. Also, there are plenty of Palestinians who will still be extremely hostile towards Israel, even if they do accept the one state solution (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). Do you really expect these Palestinians to live in this ONE STATE in peace?? No. They want it all
Click to expand...


Then, either Israel ethnically cleanses all the non-Jews (to maintain a Jewish majority), or Israel will have to continue to exist as a non-democratic apartheid state.  There are no other options that I can see.  

Possibly, with continued U.S. support to counter the world's rejection, Israel will succeed where the white South Africans (and Rhodesians) could not.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Right of return for 3 million people who have never lived on the land"
> 
> The European Jews that settled in Palestine had never lived on the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind millions of Jews going to Israel as long as the rights of non-Jews are respected.
> 
> The British and the League of Nations must have seen a problem on the horizon when they made Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine conditional upon the full respect for non-Jewish civil & religious rights in Palestine.
> 
> Their concerns have been realized a million times over.
> 
> I wonder if the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, and the Mandate for Palestine would have happened if they could see in the future how Israel treats non-Jews in the West Bank.  Probably not.  The Jews would today be stuck in Europe, Russia, and the Muslim lands.
Click to expand...


If they were Christians instead of Muslims there never would have been a problem.
Show me a Christian country today that WANTS Muslims.
Hypocrite.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there won't be a one state or two state solution.
> 
> A one state solution would mean that all the Arabs living in the West Bank AND Gaza would be part of the State of Israel. This will obviously cause massive demographic issues for Israel. Also, there are plenty of Palestinians who will still be extremely hostile towards Israel, even if they do accept the one state solution (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). Do you really expect these Palestinians to live in this ONE STATE in peace?? No. They want it all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Israelis want it all.
> 
> Many Palestinians want it all.
> 
> Houston, we have a problem.
Click to expand...


Israelis aren't going to start killing Palestinians because they want more land somewhere else.

Palestinians have many times and will continue to attack/kill Israelis because they want their land.

BIG difference


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world wants a two state solution.  Israel and Palestine.
> 
> Israel is making this almost impossible to happen.
> 
> If the current peace talks fail, the world might aswell just start demanding the one state solution and embargo Israel until they comply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there won't be a one state or two state solution.
> 
> A one state solution would mean that all the Arabs living in the West Bank AND Gaza would be part of the State of Israel. This will obviously cause massive demographic issues for Israel. Also, there are plenty of Palestinians who will still be extremely hostile towards Israel, even if they do accept the one state solution (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). Do you really expect these Palestinians to live in this ONE STATE in peace?? No. They want it all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, either Israel ethnically cleanses all the non-Jews (to maintain a Jewish majority), or Israel will have to continue to exist as a non-democratic apartheid state.  There are no other options that I can see.
> 
> Possibly, with continued U.S. support to counter the world's rejection, Israel will succeed where the white South Africans (and Rhodesians) could not.
Click to expand...


Once again, why aren't the Arab Oil Sheiks bribing the US?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Once again, why aren't the Arab Oil Sheiks bribing the US?



How many Arab Oil Sheiks are American citizens?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, why aren't the Arab Oil Sheiks bribing the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Arab Oil Sheiks are American citizens?
Click to expand...


Don't even suggest that our Representatives aren't influenced by foreign money.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Don't even suggest that our Representatives aren't influenced by foreign money.



I've seen no evidence that they are.  You're welcome to clear the air.


----------



## Sally

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, why aren't the Arab Oil Sheiks bribing the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Arab Oil Sheiks are American citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't even suggest that our Representatives aren't influenced by foreign money.
Click to expand...


Say, didn't the Saudis give the money to set up Jimmy Carter's Center?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> "Right of return for 3 million people who have never lived on the land"
> 
> The European Jews that settled in Palestine had never lived on the land.






They were invited migrants who had more ties to the land than the 3 million muslims who had never lived there. Each and every one had a distinguishing Jewish Gene while the muslims had nothing to tie them to the land.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even suggest that our Representatives aren't influenced by foreign money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no evidence that they are.  You're welcome to clear the air.
Click to expand...


Easy...US 's lukewarm Israel policy from the 1960s until about 6 months into GWs first term.
Example?   Every single time Israel was about to kill/arrest Yassar Arafat, the US ordered Israel to back off.
Every time Israel was winning a war in overt Arab Territory, the US ordered Israel to back off.
Israel was prevented by the US from freeing Lebanon from the Syrian/PLO invasion in 1982.
Clinton was totally anti-Israel and I blame him for not allowing Israel to implement anti-Intifada strategies. 

You really have to brush up on modern history.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even suggest that our Representatives aren't influenced by foreign money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no evidence that they are.  You're welcome to clear the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy...US 's lukewarm Israel policy from the 1960s until about 6 months into GWs first term.
> Example?   Every single time Israel was about to kill/arrest Yassar Arafat, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Every time Israel was winning a war in overt Arab Territory, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Israel was prevented by the US from freeing Lebanon from the Syrian/PLO invasion in 1982.
> Clinton was totally anti-Israel and I blame him for not allowing Israel to implement anti-Intifada strategies.
> 
> You really have to brush up on modern history.
Click to expand...


The USA allowed Israel to conquer the massive Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and occupy a large chunk of Lebanon for decades.

All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*  Still peddling the same crap eh??
> 
> Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Israel captured the land land during the 1948 war. This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY. Now, this land is inside the GREEN LINE. Land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel.
> 
> The whole "there are no documents showing Israel acquiring land" shtick is one of your many made up crap that you never read anywhere.
> 
> Let me ask you this, where did you read that Israel needs documents to show they acquired that land in order for the land to be theirs ?? I would really love to know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This land was NOT UNDER SOVEREIGNTY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are implying that this was not Palestinian land then that begs the question:
> 
> Why is it that the negotiation between Israel and Palestine over who gets what land is a final status issue. If it is not Palestinian land then why are they involved in that negotiation?
Click to expand...





 Because Israel is acting honourably in dealing with the muslim terrorists. They don't have to as there is no mention of Palestine in the relevant UN resolutions dealing with the borders of Israel.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no evidence that they are.  You're welcome to clear the air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy...US 's lukewarm Israel policy from the 1960s until about 6 months into GWs first term.
> Example?   Every single time Israel was about to kill/arrest Yassar Arafat, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Every time Israel was winning a war in overt Arab Territory, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Israel was prevented by the US from freeing Lebanon from the Syrian/PLO invasion in 1982.
> Clinton was totally anti-Israel and I blame him for not allowing Israel to implement anti-Intifada strategies.
> 
> You really have to brush up on modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA allowed Israel to conquer the massive Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and occupy a large chunk of Lebanon for decades.
> 
> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.
Click to expand...


The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?

Can't you do better?


----------



## Sally

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy...US 's lukewarm Israel policy from the 1960s until about 6 months into GWs first term.
> Example?   Every single time Israel was about to kill/arrest Yassar Arafat, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Every time Israel was winning a war in overt Arab Territory, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Israel was prevented by the US from freeing Lebanon from the Syrian/PLO invasion in 1982.
> Clinton was totally anti-Israel and I blame him for not allowing Israel to implement anti-Intifada strategies.
> 
> You really have to brush up on modern history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA allowed Israel to conquer the massive Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and occupy a large chunk of Lebanon for decades.
> 
> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
> I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
> Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
> The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
> As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?
> 
> Can't you do better?
Click to expand...


I find it amusing how the Arabs and their fellow travelers keep on bringing up the $3 billion a year.  What they feel to mention is that most of the money is to be spent here in our defense industries, which gives jobs to American defense workers.  Meanwhile, so much of the other money that we give in foreign aid goes right into the pockets of the tyrants or dictators who run these other countries and never is used for the people the aid was intended for.


----------



## Indeependent

Sally said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USA allowed Israel to conquer the massive Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and occupy a large chunk of Lebanon for decades.
> 
> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
> I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
> Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
> The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
> As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?
> 
> Can't you do better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it amusing how the Arabs and their fellow travelers keep on bringing up the $3 billion a year.  What they feel to mention is that most of the money is to be spent here in our defense industries, which gives jobs to American defense workers.  Meanwhile, so much of the other money that we give in foreign aid goes right into the pockets of the tyrants or dictators who run these other countries and never is used for the people the aid was intended for.
Click to expand...


True.
They never mention how much money the US hands out to their already immensely wealthy elite and how many military personnel the US has stationed there to protect the oil fields; and the US gets to pay the Market Price in return.
Sweet deal.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
> I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
> Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
> The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
> As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?
> 
> Can't you do better?



Israel occupies the Golan Heights.  Their annexation was illegal.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
> I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
> Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
> The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
> As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?
> 
> Can't you do better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel occupies the Golan Heights.  Their annexation was illegal.
Click to expand...

Did they ever get around to annexing the West Bank, or are they just occupying it?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
> I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
> Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
> The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
> As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?
> 
> Can't you do better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel occupies the Golan Heights.  Their annexation was illegal.
Click to expand...


The sole utility of the Golan Heights is securing the border from a Syrian attack.
You know those warm and fuzzy Syrians.
I bet you just LOVE them.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no evidence that they are.  You're welcome to clear the air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy...US 's lukewarm Israel policy from the 1960s until about 6 months into GWs first term.
> Example?   Every single time Israel was about to kill/arrest Yassar Arafat, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Every time Israel was winning a war in overt Arab Territory, the US ordered Israel to back off.
> Israel was prevented by the US from freeing Lebanon from the Syrian/PLO invasion in 1982.
> Clinton was totally anti-Israel and I blame him for not allowing Israel to implement anti-Intifada strategies.
> 
> You really have to brush up on modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA allowed Israel to conquer the massive Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and occupy a large chunk of Lebanon for decades...
Click to expand...

Allowed?

I did not realize that we had that level of control over the State of Israel.

Especially before we began pumping massive military aide into the country after the 1967 Six Day War was over.



> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.


That's because we like the Israelis and we do not like the Palestinians - or, at least, we like the Israelis far more than we like the Palestinians. We can give anything we want to our friends, and those we like.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Did they ever get around to annexing the West Bank, or are they just occupying it?



Israel has annexed 27 square miles of the West Bank.

If it wasn't for the First Intifada they would have annexed all the rest.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Allowed?
> 
> I did not realize that we had that level of control over the State of Israel.
> 
> Especially before we began pumping massive military aide into the country after the 1967 Six Day War was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we like the Israelis and we do not like the Palestinians - or, at least, we like the Israelis far more than we like the Palestinians. We can give anything we want to our friends, and those we like.
Click to expand...


Israel doesn't do anything unless the USA says "go ahead, boys".


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowed?
> 
> I did not realize that we had that level of control over the State of Israel.
> 
> Especially before we began pumping massive military aide into the country after the 1967 Six Day War was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we like the Israelis and we do not like the Palestinians - or, at least, we like the Israelis far more than we like the Palestinians. We can give anything we want to our friends, and those we like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel doesn't do anything unless the USA says "go ahead, boys".
Click to expand...


Israel does what it wants and then the US comes along and says "No.".
It's been a bit better since GW.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever get around to annexing the West Bank, or are they just occupying it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has annexed 27 square miles of the West Bank.
Click to expand...

Given that the West Bank is 2270 square miles in size - at a minimum - this represents something akin to 1.2% or less of the total land area.

1.2% ???!!!

Friggin' REALLY ???!!!!

Puh-leeze.



> "...If it wasn't for the First Intifada they would have annexed all the rest."


It's gonna happen anyway... in the post-Intifada II period, or post Intifada IV, V, VI, VII or whatever... it's gonna happen... and probably before their Arab neighbors (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc.) get their shit back together and are once again capable of posing a threat. Might as well avoid the Holiday Rush and get it over with sooner rather than later.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever get around to annexing the West Bank, or are they just occupying it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has annexed 27 square miles of the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that the West Bank is 2270 square miles in size - at a minimum - this represents something akin to 1.2% or less of the total land area.
> 
> 1.2% ???!!!
> 
> Friggin' REALLY ???!!!!
> 
> Puh-leeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...If it wasn't for the First Intifada they would have annexed all the rest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's gonna happen anyway... in the post-Intifada II period, or post Intifada IV, V, VI, VII or whatever... it's gonna happen... and probably before their Arab neighbors (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc.) get their shit back together and are once again capable of posing a threat. Might as well avoid the Holiday Rush and get it over with sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...


So you advocate war crimes.  

This is why Israel has so few fans around the world.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowed?
> 
> I did not realize that we had that level of control over the State of Israel.
> 
> Especially before we began pumping massive military aide into the country after the 1967 Six Day War was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the while giving Israel $3 billion a year to a total of more than $100 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we like the Israelis and we do not like the Palestinians - or, at least, we like the Israelis far more than we like the Palestinians. We can give anything we want to our friends, and those we like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel doesn't do anything unless the USA says "go ahead, boys".
Click to expand...

There may very well be some modicum of truth to that observation SINCE the 1967 Six Day War, however...

During the period PRIOR to the Six Day War and while it was underway...

Israel was the military equipment client of France more than it was the United States...

We only got involved with re-supply of expended muntions and equipment when it became clear that the Soviets were pumping-up the Egyptians and the rest of that bunch...

I seriously doubt that we had much say in the matter in 1967...

Although I'm glad we decided to refrain from interfering...

They obtained a great outcome, all on their own, without any prompting or approvals from us...

I'm not sure your 'the USA gave Israel the go-ahead for the Six Day War' premise is going to hold up very well under a closer scrutiny...


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has annexed 27 square miles of the West Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the West Bank is 2270 square miles in size - at a minimum - this represents something akin to 1.2% or less of the total land area.
> 
> 1.2% ???!!!
> 
> Friggin' REALLY ???!!!!
> 
> Puh-leeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...If it wasn't for the First Intifada they would have annexed all the rest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's gonna happen anyway... in the post-Intifada II period, or post Intifada IV, V, VI, VII or whatever... it's gonna happen... and probably before their Arab neighbors (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc.) get their shit back together and are once again capable of posing a threat. Might as well avoid the Holiday Rush and get it over with sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you advocate war crimes.
> 
> This is why Israel has so few fans around the world.
Click to expand...

I advocate Hostile Population Expulsion...

We went over all of  this yesterday...

Don't be boring...


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> I advocate Hostile Population Expulsion...
> 
> We went over all of  this yesterday...
> 
> Don't be boring...



The Arabs used the same justification when they kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews after 1949.  Birds of a feather, huh?


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate Hostile Population Expulsion...
> 
> We went over all of  this yesterday...
> 
> Don't be boring...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs used the same justification when they kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews after 1949.  Birds of a feather, huh?
Click to expand...


Wow, that's a lie I never heard before.

The Arabs expelled the Jews from the ME because of the State of Israel coming into existence. 
What is it with anti - Zionists and distorting history?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate Hostile Population Expulsion...
> 
> We went over all of  this yesterday...
> 
> Don't be boring...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs used the same justification when they kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews after 1949.  Birds of a feather, huh?
Click to expand...


Minus the Great Mohammed's habit of slicing off the heads of Infidels.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Wow, that's a lie I never heard before.
> 
> The Arabs expelled the Jews from the ME because of the State of Israel coming into existence.
> What is it with anti - Zionists and distorting history?



And many of the Jews in the Muslim world were Zionists and supported Israel's birth.

aka a hostile population deserving of expulsion.

Just as   [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] stated.

Logic knows no borders, right?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a lie I never heard before.
> 
> The Arabs expelled the Jews from the ME because of the State of Israel coming into existence.
> What is it with anti - Zionists and distorting history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many of the Jews in the Muslim world were Zionists and supported Israel's birth.
> 
> aka a hostile population deserving of expulsion.
> 
> Just as   [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] stated.
> 
> Logic knows no borders, right?
Click to expand...


How does a Jew living in Iran who wants to move to Israel pose a threat to Iran?
The more you post, the stupider your statements.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> How does a Jew living in Iran who wants to move to Israel pose a threat to Iran?
> The more you post, the stupider your statements.



Supporting an enemy state makes you an enemy of the state.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

I think there is a mistake here.



Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only item in this sentence that the US is not bitching about is the Sinai.
> I guess we can thank Jimmy Carter for something.
> Nobody occupies the Golan Heights.
> The Lebanese LOVE Israel; you Do realize Lebanon was a PARADISE before Yassar came along.
> As far as the West Bank, is not the US STILL seeking a TWO State Solution?
> 
> Can't you do better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel occupies the Golan Heights.  Their annexation was illegal.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Israel may occupy the Golan Heights, but they made no attempt to annex the territory.  The present situation is covered by the Disengagement Agreement with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) to maintain the cease-fire along the lines annotated on UN Map H213/10/1974; attached via addendum S/11302/Add.3  9 July 1974; as implementation by the Security Council S/RES/338 22 October 1973.

I fail to see that either allegation is with foundation.  The territory is neither annexed as alleged; or, illegally controlled as alleged.  Every aspect has been approved under the express agreement with the Government of Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a Jew living in Iran who wants to move to Israel pose a threat to Iran?
> The more you post, the stupider your statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting an enemy state makes you an enemy of the state.
Click to expand...


Israel was an enemy state when it didn't exist?
Or you are saying it always existed?
And why was it considered an enemy state?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised as Islam has always considered non-Islamic nations to be enemies.

Do I sense desperate stupidity here?


----------



## Victory67

RoccoR said:


> Israel may occupy the Golan Heights, but they made no attempt to annex the territory.  The present situation is covered by the Disengagement Agreement with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) to maintain the cease-fire along the lines annotated on UN Map H213/10/1974; attached via addendum S/11302/Add.3  9 July 1974; as implementation by the Security Council S/RES/338 22 October 1973.
> 
> I fail to see that either allegation is with foundation.  The territory is neither annexed as alleged; or, illegally controlled as alleged.  Every aspect has been approved under the express agreement with the Government of Syria.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Israel was an enemy state when it didn't exist?
> Or you are saying it always existed?
> And why was it considered an enemy state?
> I guess I shouldn't be surprised as Islam has always considered non-Islamic nations to be enemies.
> 
> Do I sense desperate stupidity here?


Israel became an enemy to all Muslim states after the 1948 War.

Funny how you think its ok for Israel to kick out enemy persons but Muslims do not have such right.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was an enemy state when it didn't exist?
> Or you are saying it always existed?
> And why was it considered an enemy state?
> I guess I shouldn't be surprised as Islam has always considered non-Islamic nations to be enemies.
> 
> Do I sense desperate stupidity here?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel became an enemy to all Muslim states after the 1948 War.
> 
> Funny how you think its ok for Israel to kick out enemy persons but Muslims do not have such right.
Click to expand...


No comparison...Jews in Arab nations never organized to murder Arabs.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> No comparison...Jews in Arab nations never organized to murder Arabs.



Lavon Affair in Egypt.

False flag attacks by Zionists in Iraq.

Showed the danger Zionists posed in the Muslim world.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

I stand corrected.  It appears that I was wrong.



Victory67 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel may occupy the Golan Heights, but they made no attempt to annex the territory.  The present situation is covered by the Disengagement Agreement with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) to maintain the cease-fire along the lines annotated on UN Map H213/10/1974; attached via addendum S/11302/Add.3  9 July 1974; as implementation by the Security Council S/RES/338 22 October 1973.
> 
> I fail to see that either allegation is with foundation.  The territory is neither annexed as alleged; or, illegally controlled as alleged.  Every aspect has been approved under the express agreement with the Government of Syria.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It appears that neither the UN Security Council Resolution 497 or the 1999 verbal agreements were placed into effect.

My apologies.  I was wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a lie I never heard before.
> 
> The Arabs expelled the Jews from the ME because of the State of Israel coming into existence.
> What is it with anti - Zionists and distorting history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many of the Jews in the Muslim world were Zionists and supported Israel's birth.
> 
> aka a hostile population deserving of expulsion.
> 
> Just as   [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] stated.
> 
> Logic knows no borders, right?
Click to expand...


That doesn't make them hostile lol !! 

The comparison you made is extremely off !


----------



## Victory67

RoccoR said:


> Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> I stand corrected.  It appears that I was wrong. My apologies.  I was wrong.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



You have nothing to apologize for.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a lie I never heard before.
> 
> The Arabs expelled the Jews from the ME because of the State of Israel coming into existence.
> What is it with anti - Zionists and distorting history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many of the Jews in the Muslim world were Zionists and supported Israel's birth.
> 
> aka a hostile population deserving of expulsion.
> 
> Just as   [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] stated.
> 
> Logic knows no borders, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make them hostile lol !!
> 
> The comparison you made is extremely off !
Click to expand...


Supporting an enemy makes them hostile.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many of the Jews in the Muslim world were Zionists and supported Israel's birth.
> 
> aka a hostile population deserving of expulsion.
> 
> Just as   [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] stated.
> 
> Logic knows no borders, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make them hostile lol !!
> 
> The comparison you made is extremely off !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supporting an enemy makes them hostile.
Click to expand...


So you're saying its ok to expel the hostile population?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> So you're saying its ok to expel the hostile population?



 [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] says its ok.  No one here chooses to condemn him.  So I guess I should just agree with him.

I could bring up another example of a "hostile population" being expelled but I don't think we are ready for that just yet.


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did they ever get around to annexing the West Bank, or are they just occupying it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has annexed 27 square miles of the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that the West Bank is 2270 square miles in size - at a minimum - this represents something akin to 1.2% or less of the total land area.
> 
> 1.2% ???!!!
> 
> Friggin' REALLY ???!!!!
> 
> Puh-leeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...If it wasn't for the First Intifada they would have annexed all the rest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's gonna happen anyway... in the post-Intifada II period, or post Intifada IV, V, VI, VII or whatever... it's gonna happen... and probably before their Arab neighbors (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc.) get their shit back together and are once again capable of posing a threat. Might as well avoid the Holiday Rush and get it over with sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...


and the PA has already agreed in principle to an equal land trade for the settlements, but even expansion within the settlements is turned into a land theft when there is no additional land involved.  Settlements are in no way an issue to hindering a peace agreement except that the palestinians don't want to agree to any peace and will use any and every excuse to walk, or rather run, away from the negotiation table.


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> and the PA has already agreed in principle to an equal land trade for the settlements, but even expansion within the settlements is turned into a land theft when there is no additional land involved.  Settlements are in no way an issue to hindering a peace agreement except that the palestinians don't want to agree to any peace and will use any and every excuse to walk, or rather run, away from the negotiation table.



That's only because you don't understand that many of the settlements are illegal.

Why should the PA accept Israel being able to keep illegal settlements?

The Israelis still refuse to offer a 1 to 1 exchange of land in order to keep settlements.

They think for every square mile of land Israel keeps, Palestine should get 1/3 of the land area in Israel.  With such an unfair mindset how can there be peace?


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the PA has already agreed in principle to an equal land trade for the settlements, but even expansion within the settlements is turned into a land theft when there is no additional land involved.  Settlements are in no way an issue to hindering a peace agreement except that the palestinians don't want to agree to any peace and will use any and every excuse to walk, or rather run, away from the negotiation table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because you don't understand that many of the settlements are illegal.
> 
> Why should the PA accept Israel being able to keep illegal settlements?
> 
> The Israelis still refuse to offer a 1 to 1 exchange of land in order to keep settlements.
> 
> They think for every square mile of land Israel keeps, Palestine should get 1/3 of the land area in Israel.  With such an unfair mindset how can there be peace?
Click to expand...


I wonder how you can tell us how there can ever be peace when in the Hamas and Fatah Charters, they still state their purpose is to destroy Israel.


----------



## Victory67

Sally said:


> I wonder how you can tell us how there can ever be peace when in the Hamas and Fatah Charters, they still state their purpose is to destroy Israel.



The PLO amended their charter more than a decade ago.


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how you can tell us how there can ever be peace when in the Hamas and Fatah Charters, they still state their purpose is to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PLO amended their charter more than a decade ago.
Click to expand...


Why don't you prove it to us.


----------



## Victory67

Sally said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how you can tell us how there can ever be peace when in the Hamas and Fatah Charters, they still state their purpose is to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PLO amended their charter more than a decade ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you prove it to us.
Click to expand...


Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.

Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.

http://www.pcpsr.org/domestic/2001/conste1.html


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PLO amended their charter more than a decade ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you prove it to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.
> 
> Palestinian Constitutition - First Part
Click to expand...



I can imagine that even if the charter were changed, those Palestinians doing the changing would be killed by other Palestinians, the same way if some Palestinians signed a peace agreement with Israel, they would be killed.  Say, since you appear to have mucho time on your hands, why don't you go over there and convince your good friends to change it?  You can also tell them to stop making those cartoons teaching the children to hate the Jews and how glorious it is to be a Shaheed if you take out some Jews with you.

The PLO Charter Amendment That Never Was - Op-Eds - Israel National News


----------



## Victory67

Sally said:


> I can imagine that even if the charter were changed, those Palestinians doing the changing would be killed by other Palestinians, the same way if some Palestinians signed a peace agreement with Israel, they would be killed.  Say, since you appear to have mucho time on your hands, why don't you go over there and convince your good friends to change it?  You can also tell them to stop making those cartoons teaching the children to hate the Jews and how glorious it is to be a Shaheed if you take out some Jews with you.
> 
> The PLO Charter Amendment That Never Was - Op-Eds - Israel National News



You asked me for evidence that the Charter was amended only to then say that the Charter was never amended after I give you evidence?  What a waste of time you are.


----------



## Sally

I very rarely read Wikipedia because I know things can be put in there that people want to put in.  I would rather rely on a regular encyclopedia.  However, you certainly must be a waste of time since you informed the readers that the charter was changed.  Meanwhile, with all your postings with the same old stuff that readers have seen for years, you seem like an over zealous madrassa student who couldn't care about your brothers are doing in many spots in the world against innocent people but are just focused on israel because of the Jews.  Carry on, but please be aware that most readers here are intelligent and can see right through you.


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the PA has already agreed in principle to an equal land trade for the settlements, but even expansion within the settlements is turned into a land theft when there is no additional land involved.  Settlements are in no way an issue to hindering a peace agreement except that the palestinians don't want to agree to any peace and will use any and every excuse to walk, or rather run, away from the negotiation table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because you don't understand that many of the settlements are illegal.
> 
> Why should the PA accept Israel being able to keep illegal settlements?
> 
> The Israelis still refuse to offer a 1 to 1 exchange of land in order to keep settlements.
> 
> They think for every square mile of land Israel keeps, Palestine should get 1/3 of the land area in Israel.  With such an unfair mindset how can there be peace?
Click to expand...


Problem is arabs don't want to be part of any land swap.  They want to remain Israelis, they don't want to be palestinians.  Jews are willing to be palestinians in the WB but Abbas says "no jews" even through jews lived in all areas of the palestine and the middle east long before the arabs.  Even according to Islam, jews did not steal the land but told by god to go live there as a nation.  Arabs did not show up till the 7th Century AD with the Islamic invasion after the death of Mohammed.


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> Problem is arabs don't want to be part of any land swap.  They want to remain Israelis, they don't want to be palestinians.  Jews are willing to be palestinians in the WB but Abbas says "no jews" even through jews lived in all areas of the palestine and the middle east long before the arabs.  Even according to Islam, jews did not steal the land but told by god to go live there as a nation.  Arabs did not show up till the 7th Century AD with the Islamic invasion after the death of Mohammed.



Which Jewish settlers are willing to become Palestinian citizens?

Israel should give Palestine uninhabited land to swap for settlement land.

Using Israeli land with hundreds of thousands of Arabs on it to swap without their consent, is a crime against humanity.


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is arabs don't want to be part of any land swap.  They want to remain Israelis, they don't want to be palestinians.  Jews are willing to be palestinians in the WB but Abbas says "no jews" even through jews lived in all areas of the palestine and the middle east long before the arabs.  Even according to Islam, jews did not steal the land but told by god to go live there as a nation.  Arabs did not show up till the 7th Century AD with the Islamic invasion after the death of Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Jewish settlers are willing to become Palestinian citizens?
> 
> Israel should give Palestine uninhabited land to swap for settlement land.
> 
> Using Israeli land with hundreds of thousands of Arabs on it to swap without their consent, is a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...


I wonder if a big stink was made when lines of counries were changed in Europe.  Were the people living there asked if they didn't mind being part of another country from one they thought they were citizens of.  Maybe Victory, that astute scholar of history, can tell us this.  By the way, whether or not all of the settlers are willing to become Palestinian citizens, Abbas has claimed that the area will be Jew free.


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is arabs don't want to be part of any land swap.  They want to remain Israelis, they don't want to be palestinians.  Jews are willing to be palestinians in the WB but Abbas says "no jews" even through jews lived in all areas of the palestine and the middle east long before the arabs.  Even according to Islam, jews did not steal the land but told by god to go live there as a nation.  Arabs did not show up till the 7th Century AD with the Islamic invasion after the death of Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Jewish settlers are willing to become Palestinian citizens?
> 
> Israel should give Palestine uninhabited land to swap for settlement land.
> 
> Using Israeli land with hundreds of thousands of Arabs on it to swap without their consent, is a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...


So Israel gives the palestinians desert.  Now jews might have made the desert bloom but do you think palestinians can do the same?  Or are willing to try?  They can't even make their own economy bloom with all the money given to them by the world.

Jews develope the land, vacated it and turn it over to palestinians.... that worked so well in gaza the palestinians destroyed everything that was had been touched by jewish hands, and still wage constant war on Israel because they won't accept Israel has a right to exist.

If even Jordan does not want palestinians in control of the jordan valley, it does not show much faith in the palestinians/former jordanians.


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> So Israel gives the palestinians desert.  Now jews might have made the desert bloom but do you think palestinians can do the same?  Or are willing to try?  They can't even make their own economy bloom with all the money given to them by the world.
> 
> Jews develope the land, vacated it and turn it over to palestinians.... that worked so well in gaza the palestinians destroyed everything that was had been touched by jewish hands, and still wage constant war on Israel because they won't accept Israel has a right to exist.
> 
> If even Jordan does not want palestinians in control of the jordan valley, it does not show much faith in the palestinians/former jordanians.



So the only options are parts of northern Israel with hundreds of thousands of Arabs, or parts of the Negev desert?

Sounds like you want to make an offer the Palestinians must refuse.



How about instead Israel offers Palestine a 1 to 1 swap, settlement land for uninhabited Israeli land that's borders the West Bank.

Israel could just give Palestine a 5 mile wide extension of the West Bank border in the northern half.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We have seen this scene before in its obscured simplicity_..."
> 
> 
> 
> In connection with such future prospects and speculation, one of the differences between you and I is that you seem to lean heavily upon the fickle twists and turns of the most recent developments, such as much of The West granting Palestine observer status, temporarily having a Liberal in the White House, etc., while I lean more heavily upon long-term patterns of manifested behaviors and largely ignore the trend du jour or development du jour, while keeping a watchful eye on them myself. You and I see such prospects and speculative outcomes in vastly different lights. As to your comments about the Germans not helping the Israelis, you may do well to more closely study the close and intimate relationship that now exists between Germany and Israel. You may be in for a surprise.
Click to expand...


It is your trends du jour analysis that falters...The ME has a history of resistance towards the Western Colonial Powers, and one by one they have left from attrition...History has a habit of repeating...


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many of the Jews in the Muslim world were Zionists and supported Israel's birth.
> 
> aka a hostile population deserving of expulsion.
> 
> Just as   [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] stated.
> 
> Logic knows no borders, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make them hostile lol !!
> 
> The comparison you made is extremely off !
Click to expand...


Lighting-off massive rocket-barrages makes the Pals hostile.

Launching large-scale suicide bombing campaigns against Israeli civilian populations makes the Pals hostile.

Digging tunnels from which to launch terror attacks makes the Pals hostile.

Embedding their war assets amongst their civilians makes the Pals hostile - and cowards - hiding behind the skirts of their women and children.

Swearing to destroy Israel and drown the Jews in the Med makes the Pals hostile.

Jews siding with their Arab neighbors in a debating or advocacy context does not make that modest percentage of Jews hostile to Israel.

What a sophomoric and disingenuous failed attempt at sophistry.


----------



## Victory67

If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.


The Muslims pretty much kicked-out all their Jews already, didn't they, in the 1948-1975 timeframe. I seriously doubt that sizable Jewish communities exist in such countries any longer. I'm also guessing that what remains - all told - would fall far below the 800K mark; although I'd have to go digging-up demographic stats in order to be certain.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate Hostile Population Expulsion...
> 
> We went over all of  this yesterday...
> 
> Don't be boring...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs used the same justification when they kicked out hundreds of thousands of Jews after 1949.  Birds of a feather, huh?
Click to expand...

I don't recall the Jews of those countries engaging in suicide bombing against the Muslims prior to the expulsion of the Jews from those countries.

I don't recall the Jews of those countries engaging in rocket-barrages against the Muslims prior to the expulsion of the Jews from those countries.

I do recall the Jews of those countries being used as political pawns to try to punish Israel.

You have a self-serving and inadequate understanding of the phrase 'hostile population'.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.



You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians. 

It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)

But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser. 
That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel. 

And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims pretty much kicked-out all their Jews already, didn't they, in the 1948-1975 timeframe. I seriously doubt that sizable Jewish communities exist in such countries any longer. I'm also guessing that what remains - all told - would fall far below the 800K mark; although I'd have to go digging-up demographic stats in order to be certain.
Click to expand...


and those jews from arab lands are living in Israel for the most part now.  Arab states refuse to accept palestinians and keep them as refugees.  Jordan offered them citizenship and passports as well as a position as PM for arafat.  Arafat instead decided to try and over throw King Hussein which led to Black September. 
Citizenship was withdrawn in the WB.  A few thousand that were granted citizenship in Lebanon has also been withdrawn for their actions in Lebanon.

Try and be nice....


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
Click to expand...


You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.

The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.

Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
Click to expand...


Half of the 800,000 Arab refugees from Israel were forced out by the Israeli armies.

The only reason 200,000 remained in the north of Israel is because the officers refused to obey their orders to force out innocent Arab civilians.  This is too their credit and the Arabs of Israel owe them a big thanks for their humanity as many of their fellow Jews showed no such humanity.


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims pretty much kicked-out all their Jews already, didn't they, in the 1948-1975 timeframe. I seriously doubt that sizable Jewish communities exist in such countries any longer. I'm also guessing that what remains - all told - would fall far below the 800K mark; although I'd have to go digging-up demographic stats in order to be certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and those jews from arab lands are living in Israel for the most part now.  Arab states refuse to accept palestinians and keep them as refugees.  Jordan offered them citizenship and passports as well as a position as PM for arafat.  Arafat instead decided to try and over throw King Hussein which led to Black September.
> Citizenship was withdrawn in the WB.  A few thousand that were granted citizenship in Lebanon has also been withdrawn for their actions in Lebanon.
> 
> Try and be nice....
Click to expand...


The Palestinians in Jordan are all citizens.  The Palestinians in the West Bank also still have Jordanian citizenship.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> _Half of the 800,000 Arab refugees from Israel were forced out by the Israeli armies.The only reason 200,000 remained in the north of Israel is because the officers refused to obey their orders to force out innocent Arab civilians. This is too their credit and the Arabs of Israel owe them a big thanks for their humanity as many of their fellow Jews showed no such humanity._


Or, alternatively, 200,000 had the common sense God gave an ant, and the balls to act on that common sense, and remain in-place, rather than falling for the Bullshit Artist chatter served-up by the Arab League at the time.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

I'm not so sure this is true.



Victory67 said:


> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.


*(COMMENT)*

There are lots of things that have change, evolved and altered the world.  The Middle East has not escaped change, although the Arab, as a human and their societal adaptivity, has certainly resisted.

The Palestinian cannot stand against a war of attrition even if they (somehow) magically assumed sovereign control of Israel.

The key to peace in the region is the mutual adaptation of the cultures in a economically prosperous way.  They don't have to assimilate, just want the mutually better life.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

pbel said:


> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...



This is where you and I are going to seriously disagree.

Just before the Six Day War, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, massed hundreds of thousands of troops right by the Israel border, and their leaders claimed again and again how the destruction of Israel was imminent and was their goal.   

Knowing all this Israel would have been suicidal to not strike first.  There is such a thing as pre-emptive self-defense and Israel did just that in 1967.  They also urged Jordan to not join the war and said nothing had to go any further than little gun battles in Jerusalem.  The Great King Hussein, who I greatly admire, said "the die had been cast" and launched a full-scale war on Israel which Israel of course won.

Israel was right to launch pre-emptive self-defense against Egypt.  They were right to urge Jordan to stay out of the war.  The Syrian front is more complicated.

Israel's big mistake was to put one single settler in Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank.  They should have just used these lands as a barganing chip for peace.

We now see how settlements have made peace all but impossible, as Palestine wants the settlers to go and many in Israel want them all to be part of Israel.

Unless Israel and Palestine can come to some agreement where some Israelis stay part of Israel with a 1 to 1 swap of land and the rest of the settlers go home to Israel or become citizens of Palestine, peace isn't going to ever happen.


----------



## Kondor3

And if peace isn't ever going to happen, then the contestants may as well duke-it-out for the title, here and now, yes? There is no point in delaying - from the Israeli perspective, anyway.


----------



## pbel

Victory67 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you and I are going to seriously disagree.
> 
> Just before the Six Day War, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, massed hundreds of thousands of troops right by the Israel border, and their leaders claimed again and again how the destruction of Israel was imminent and was their goal.
> 
> Knowing all this Israel would have been suicidal to not strike first.  There is such a thing as pre-emptive self-defense and Israel did just that in 1967.  They also urged Jordan to not join the war and said nothing had to go any further than little gun battles in Jerusalem.  The Great King Hussein, who I greatly admire, said "the die had been cast" and launched a full-scale war on Israel which Israel of course won.
> 
> Israel was right to launch pre-emptive self-defense against Egypt.  They were right to urge Jordan to stay out of the war.  The Syrian front is more complicated.
> 
> Israel's big mistake was to put one single settler in Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank.  They should have just used these lands as a barganing chip for peace.
> 
> We now see how settlements have made peace all but impossible, as Palestine wants the settlers to go and many in Israel want them all to be part of Israel.
> 
> Unless Israel and Palestine can come to some agreement where some Israelis stay part of Israel with a 1 to 1 swap of land and the rest of the settlers go home to Israel or become citizens of Palestine, peace isn't going to ever happen.
Click to expand...


We may disagree, however, it was not a defensive preemptive strike...History has thus far noted my view.

A few tidbits for you.




Moshe Dayan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan*








Wikipedia





6 Political career; 7 Six-Day War (1967); 8 Yom Kippur War (1973); 9 Foreign ... On 3 October 1939 he was the commanding instructor for Haganah Leader's .... In Jerusalem he had given instructions that infiltrators killed in no-man's-land or the .... argued for a pre-emptive attack on Israel's neighbours, particularly Egypt.
Missing: distorting *grab



More Re-Writing Of History: Israel's Attack On Egypt During Six Day ...



northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/.../more-re-writing-of-history-israels.h...*




Jul 4, 2010 - Israel's attack on Egypt in June '67 was not 'preemptive' ... Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record. ... Sinai, to which Nasser replied, Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. .... The Truth About Israel's Land Grab In The West Ban.


The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth ...



www.alanhart.net/the-lies-about-the-1967-war-are-still-more-powerful-th...*







Jun 5, 2012 - In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, ... and were only prevented from doing so by Israel's pre-emptive strike. .... Yet now we know that war was a long-planned land grab destined to outrage Arabs and Muslims. ..... With older History you have to compare authors for authenticity but ...


The three whoppers of Alan Dershowitz - Mondoweiss



mondoweiss.net/2013/05/three-whoppers-dershowitz.html*








Mondoweiss





May 7, 2013 - Let me start by giving you a little of my own history on these issues. In 1967, as you probably all know, Israel tried very hard to keep Jordan out of the 1967 war ... The War with Egypt and with Syria was a preemptive war, but the war that ... Morris does claim that Israeli leaders thought that the conquered ...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
Click to expand...


I am distorting history??? You people that think Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war are a minority. You really think Israel would have attacked had Egypt and Syria NOT massed troops by its borders???? 
Why did the Arab mass their troops at the border for, while making threats of annihalation? 
Why would Israel risk its existence by attacking all those countries (who were backed by other states) that were 500 times its size? And if it was a planned land grab, why did Israel offer the Golan back to Syria and the Sinai back to Egypt? 
As for capturing the West Bank, Israel begged Jordan not to join the war, but they did. So you can't claim that Israel's pre emptive strike was to take over the West Bank.

*The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.*

Huh? What do you mean ?


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you and I are going to seriously disagree.
> 
> Just before the Six Day War, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, massed hundreds of thousands of troops right by the Israel border, and their leaders claimed again and again how the destruction of Israel was imminent and was their goal.
> 
> Knowing all this Israel would have been suicidal to not strike first.  There is such a thing as pre-emptive self-defense and Israel did just that in 1967.  They also urged Jordan to not join the war and said nothing had to go any further than little gun battles in Jerusalem.  The Great King Hussein, who I greatly admire, said "the die had been cast" and launched a full-scale war on Israel which Israel of course won.
> 
> Israel was right to launch pre-emptive self-defense against Egypt.  They were right to urge Jordan to stay out of the war.  The Syrian front is more complicated.
Click to expand...

Agree.



> Israel's big mistake was to put one single settler in Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank.  They should have just used these lands as a barganing chip for peace.
> 
> We now see how settlements have made peace all but impossible, as Palestine wants the settlers to go and many in Israel want them all to be part of Israel.
> 
> Unless Israel and Palestine can come to some agreement where some Israelis stay part of Israel with a 1 to 1 swap of land and the rest of the settlers go home to Israel or become citizens of Palestine, peace isn't going to ever happen.


Not so much.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims pretty much kicked-out all their Jews already, didn't they, in the 1948-1975 timeframe. I seriously doubt that sizable Jewish communities exist in such countries any longer. I'm also guessing that what remains - all told - would fall far below the 800K mark; although I'd have to go digging-up demographic stats in order to be certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and those jews from arab lands are living in Israel for the most part now.  Arab states refuse to accept palestinians and keep them as refugees.  Jordan offered them citizenship and passports as well as a position as PM for arafat.  Arafat instead decided to try and over throw King Hussein which led to Black September.
> Citizenship was withdrawn in the WB.  A few thousand that were granted citizenship in Lebanon has also been withdrawn for their actions in Lebanon.
> 
> Try and be nice....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians in Jordan are all citizens.  The Palestinians in the West Bank also still have Jordanian citizenship.
Click to expand...



Not all of them. Many of them are refugees living in refugee camps in Jordan. They are not citizens


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half of the 800,000 Arab refugees from Israel were forced out by the Israeli armies.
> 
> The only reason 200,000 remained in the north of Israel is because the officers refused to obey their orders to force out innocent Arab civilians.  This is too their credit and the Arabs of Israel owe them a big thanks for their humanity as many of their fellow Jews showed no such humanity.
Click to expand...


Arabs were asked to stay and be part of Israel.  It also offered in '49 to take back in 100,000 of those who had left.  Since then till Oslo there were reunification programs that allowed on average 2000 palestinians a year to return to Israel and become citizens.

Israel took in the jews thrown out of arab lands, but the arabs refused to absorb the palestinians they told to get out of the way of arab armies even before the mandate ended.  Jordanian, egyptian and syrian official records as well as palestinian officials all have acknowledged that the arabs created the exodus and subsequent refugee problem.
Only a few thousand were forced out due to terrorist activity, by the Israelis.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half of the 800,000 Arab refugees from Israel were forced out by the Israeli armies.
> 
> The only reason 200,000 remained in the north of Israel is because the officers refused to obey their orders to force out innocent Arab civilians.  This is too their credit and the Arabs of Israel owe them a big thanks for their humanity as many of their fellow Jews showed no such humanity.
Click to expand...


Huh?? Where did you read that??

But you do have things a bit mixed up. It is the Palestinians who should thank Israel for not expelling every single one of them after the 6 day war and then AGAIN after the yom kippur war. Everyone though Moshe Dayan would expel them, but he let hundreds of thousands stay.

 Had the Arabs won either war, there would not be a single Jew living between the river and the sea.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am distorting history??? You people that think Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war are a minority. You really think Israel would have attacked had Egypt and Syria NOT massed troops by its borders????
> Why did the Arab mass their troops at the border for, while making threats of annihalation?
> Why would Israel risk its existence by attacking all those countries (who were backed by other states) that were 500 times its size? And if it was a planned land grab, why did Israel offer the Golan back to Syria and the Sinai back to Egypt?
> As for capturing the West Bank, Israel begged Jordan not to join the war, but they did. So you can't claim that Israel's pre emptive strike was to take over the West Bank.
> 
> [B]The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.[/B]
> 
> Huh? What do you mean ?
Click to expand...


 The Arabs were posturing...They never had a chance of success...That's why Historians note it a pre-emptive strike...As for Jerusalem, poetic license for effect...Israel wanted Jerusalem not the West Bank and that is their position today.


----------



## toastman

No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Huh?? Where did you read that??
> 
> But you do have things a bit mixed up. It is the Palestinians who should thank Israel for not expelling every single one of them after the 6 day war and then AGAIN after the yom kippur war. Everyone though Moshe Dayan would expel them, but he let hundreds of thousands stay.
> 
> Had the Arabs won either war, there would not be a single Jew living between the river and the sea.



Flapan maintains that events in Nazareth, although ending differently, point to the existence of a definite pattern of expulsion. On 16 July, three days after the Lydda and Ramlah evictions, the city of Nazareth surrendered to the IDF. The officer in command, a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman, had signed the surrender agreement on behalf of the Israeli army along with Chaim Laskov (then a brigadier general, later IDF chief of staff). The agreement assured the civilians that they would not be harmed, but the next day, Laskov handed Dunkelman an order to evacuate the population, which Dunkelman refused.[

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.



provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?

Of course not!


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am distorting history??? You people that think Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war are a minority. You really think Israel would have attacked had Egypt and Syria NOT massed troops by its borders????
> Why did the Arab mass their troops at the border for, while making threats of annihalation?
> Why would Israel risk its existence by attacking all those countries (who were backed by other states) that were 500 times its size? And if it was a planned land grab, why did Israel offer the Golan back to Syria and the Sinai back to Egypt?
> As for capturing the West Bank, Israel begged Jordan not to join the war, but they did. So you can't claim that Israel's pre emptive strike was to take over the West Bank.
> 
> [B]The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.[/B]
> 
> Huh? What do you mean ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arabs were posturing...They never had a chance of success...That's why Historians note it a pre-emptive strike...As for Jerusalem, poetic license for effect...Israel wanted Jerusalem not the West Bank and that is their position today.
Click to expand...

"Get there first with the most men".
~~~Gen. N.B. Forrest 

In other words, "Get thar fustest with the mostest".
                        ~~~Typical Rebel Soldier


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?
> 
> Of course not!
Click to expand...


* By early 1967, the Israeli intelligence network in Egypt had detected Nasser's preparations for war with Israel,and more informants were recruited. By early May 1967, the Mossad was able to inform Israeli commanders of the precise time to attack Egyptian airbases*

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Victory67

Egypt's preperations for the war and the signing of a mutual-defense treaty with Jordan made it clear that war was on the horizon.

If Israel didn't act they might have been annihilated.


----------



## pbel

Victory67 said:


> Egypt's preperations for the war and the signing of a mutual-defense treaty with Jordan made it clear that war was on the horizon.
> 
> If Israel didn't act they might have been annihilated.



Provide unbiased links...Might have been annihilated by what? the stick and stone army historians note?...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?
> 
> Of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * By early 1967, the Israeli intelligence network in Egypt had detected Nasser's preparations for war with Israel,and more informants were recruited. By early May 1967, the Mossad was able to inform Israeli commanders of the precise time to attack Egyptian airbases*
> 
> Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Please post an unbiased link with the language, or do any unbiased historians agree with your point , not the IDF self-serving Shiite.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?
> 
> Of course not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * By early 1967, the Israeli intelligence network in Egypt had detected Nasser's preparations for war with Israel,and more informants were recruited. By early May 1967, the Mossad was able to inform Israeli commanders of the precise time to attack Egyptian airbases*
> 
> Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post an unbiased link with the language, or do any unbiased historians agree with your point , not the IDF self-serving Shiite.
Click to expand...


Oh, so now Wikipedia is biased?? LOL !! 

And what do you mean by IDF self serving


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt's preperations for the war and the signing of a mutual-defense treaty with Jordan made it clear that war was on the horizon.
> 
> If Israel didn't act they might have been annihilated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide unbiased links...Might have been annihilated by what? the stick and stone army historians note?...
Click to expand...


Like you did when you posted links to back up your claims about the 6 day war???? 

Oh wait, you didn't.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am distorting history??? You people that think Israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war are a minority. You really think Israel would have attacked had Egypt and Syria NOT massed troops by its borders????
> Why did the Arab mass their troops at the border for, while making threats of annihalation?
> Why would Israel risk its existence by attacking all those countries (who were backed by other states) that were 500 times its size? And if it was a planned land grab, why did Israel offer the Golan back to Syria and the Sinai back to Egypt?
> As for capturing the West Bank, Israel begged Jordan not to join the war, but they did. So you can't claim that Israel's pre emptive strike was to take over the West Bank.
> 
> [B]The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.[/B]
> 
> Huh? What do you mean ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arabs were posturing...They never had a chance of success...That's why Historians note it a pre-emptive strike...As for Jerusalem, poetic license for effect...Israel wanted Jerusalem not the West Bank and that is their position today.
Click to expand...


Next time, the Egyptians and Jordanians will know better than to take up an aggressive border posture with Israel, won't they? An expensive lesson, that.




Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Victory67

pbel said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt's preperations for the war and the signing of a mutual-defense treaty with Jordan made it clear that war was on the horizon.
> 
> If Israel didn't act they might have been annihilated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide unbiased links...Might have been annihilated by what? the stick and stone army historians note?...
Click to expand...


The Arab armies had 540,000 troops.

957 combat aircraft.

2,504 tanks.


The Israeli army had 261,000 troops.

300 combat aircraft.

800 tanks.




Do the math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> * By early 1967, the Israeli intelligence network in Egypt had detected Nasser's preparations for war with Israel,and more informants were recruited. By early May 1967, the Mossad was able to inform Israeli commanders of the precise time to attack Egyptian airbases*
> 
> Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Please post an unbiased link with the language, or do any unbiased historians agree with your point , not the IDF self-serving Shiite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now Wikipedia is biased?? LOL !!
> 
> And what do you mean by IDF self serving
Click to expand...


Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals? 

If you need help re-searching let me know.


----------



## Kondor3

Time to climb-down from the _Arabs were only foolin'_ guardhouse lawyer defense, pbel... it ain't goin' anywhere.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post an unbiased link with the language, or do any unbiased historians agree with your point , not the IDF self-serving Shiite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now Wikipedia is biased?? LOL !!
> 
> And what do you mean by IDF self serving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
Click to expand...


LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.

BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was). 

More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:

"Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22&#8211;23"*

The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post an unbiased link with the language, or do any unbiased historians agree with your point , not the IDF self-serving Shiite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now Wikipedia is biased?? LOL !!
> 
> And what do you mean by IDF self serving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
Click to expand...


Were the Jews supposed to survive the Holocaust?
If Hitler didn't try to conquer all of Europe and Asia at once, his Final Solution would have succeeded.

Israel got it's a$$ kicked in the first several days of the Yom Kippur War and came back and won.

Things happen.

Plus the fact that very few nations actually describe their espionage tactics on the Internet.
Except the Arabs; they're quite stupid when it comes to that.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now Wikipedia is biased?? LOL !!
> 
> And what do you mean by IDF self serving
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack

At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]*


----------



## pbel

Victory67 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt's preperations for the war and the signing of a mutual-defense treaty with Jordan made it clear that war was on the horizon.
> 
> If Israel didn't act they might have been annihilated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide unbiased links...Might have been annihilated by what? the stick and stone army historians note?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab armies had 540,000 troops.
> 
> 957 combat aircraft.
> 
> 2,504 tanks.
> 
> 
> The Israeli army had 261,000 troops.
> 
> 300 combat aircraft.
> 
> 800 tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the math.
> 
> Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


My accurate numbers were for Israel's attack on Egypt which started the war.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War
> 
> Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack
> 
> At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]*
Click to expand...


And????


----------



## Kondor3

What-the-hell... I tried...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop playing with my head Tinmore. Your lies might work with someone else, but not with me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents* showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt and Jordan for starters, then the UN armistice lines that were agreed as starting points for any future borders agreements.
Click to expand...


What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents* showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt and Jordan for starters, then the UN armistice lines that were agreed as starting points for any future borders agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?
Click to expand...

Why, check out your '48 map of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now Wikipedia is biased?? LOL !!
> 
> And what do you mean by IDF self serving
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




> Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.



So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt and Jordan for starters, then the UN armistice lines that were agreed as starting points for any future borders agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, check out your '48 map of Israel.
Click to expand...


Never seen one.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.
Click to expand...

Who administers those waters?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.
Click to expand...


What does one have to do with the other??


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the PA has already agreed in principle to an equal land trade for the settlements, but even expansion within the settlements is turned into a land theft when there is no additional land involved.  Settlements are in no way an issue to hindering a peace agreement except that the palestinians don't want to agree to any peace and will use any and every excuse to walk, or rather run, away from the negotiation table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because you don't understand that many of the settlements are illegal.
> 
> Why should the PA accept Israel being able to keep illegal settlements?
> 
> The Israelis still refuse to offer a 1 to 1 exchange of land in order to keep settlements.
> 
> They think for every square mile of land Israel keeps, Palestine should get 1/3 of the land area in Israel.  With such an unfair mindset how can there be peace?
Click to expand...





EVIDENCE AND PROOF and not from some islamonazi hate site


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how you can tell us how there can ever be peace when in the Hamas and Fatah Charters, they still state their purpose is to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PLO amended their charter more than a decade ago.
Click to expand...






No they didn't as it was never ratified, you see they could not get the quorum needed to change the charter.

PLO Charter Revision Strategy

 But nothing was done to change the Covenant. The requirement was restated in another letter from Arafat to Rabin which accompanied the May 4, 1994 Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area (the Cairo Agreement), but no action was taken by Arafat and the PLO.

 But, again, that was not actually the case. The PNC action, which has not been officially fully disclosed, only stated an intention to make changes at a future date and did not specify, in detail, the changes that would be made. The matter was referred to a legal committee for study. No specific anti-Israel clauses in the Covenant were declared officially abrogated. Moreover, the process was incomplete because the PNC did not draft a new Covenant. After winning the election in May 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu declared the failure to revise the Covenant to be a violation of the agreements by the Palestinians.

  On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, which required compliance with the earlier agreements, convened in Gaza in the presence of US President Clinton and voted to reaffirm their decision to amend the Covenant. But, again, this was insubstantial window dressing. Their action didn't actually amend the Covenant and the Palestinian Authority remained in violation of the lengthening series of agreements.

 Although the Palestinian National Council (PNC) has twice taken formal decisions to revise the Palestinian National Covenant (1996 and 1998) calling for Israel's destruction, the PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun, stated on February 3, 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Palestinian Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 3 February 2001, as translated by MEMRI].

This saga of the Covenant revision is an example of the lack of good faith on the part of Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs in the course of the Oslo peace process. But, it probably does not make a difference whether the Covenant is actually revised or not. The hatred and violence directed against Israel by the Palestinian Arabs does not originate with the piece of paper called the Palestinian National Covenant.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PLO amended their charter more than a decade ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you prove it to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.
> 
> Palestinian Constitutition - First Part
Click to expand...





 From your link we see this which destroys your argument

 Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended

 In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.


*SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI*


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can imagine that even if the charter were changed, those Palestinians doing the changing would be killed by other Palestinians, the same way if some Palestinians signed a peace agreement with Israel, they would be killed.  Say, since you appear to have mucho time on your hands, why don't you go over there and convince your good friends to change it?  You can also tell them to stop making those cartoons teaching the children to hate the Jews and how glorious it is to be a Shaheed if you take out some Jews with you.
> 
> The PLO Charter Amendment That Never Was - Op-Eds - Israel National News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me for evidence that the Charter was amended only to then say that the Charter was never amended after I give you evidence?  What a waste of time you are.
Click to expand...




 Because it never was amended and you produced no proof that it was. A draft is just that a preliminary piece of paper with the proposed amendments on that has to be ratified by a 66% quorum. It is you that is the waste of time for not doing your research and only using the sites and sources that support your islamonazi POV.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Israel gives the palestinians desert.  Now jews might have made the desert bloom but do you think palestinians can do the same?  Or are willing to try?  They can't even make their own economy bloom with all the money given to them by the world.
> 
> Jews develope the land, vacated it and turn it over to palestinians.... that worked so well in gaza the palestinians destroyed everything that was had been touched by jewish hands, and still wage constant war on Israel because they won't accept Israel has a right to exist.
> 
> If even Jordan does not want palestinians in control of the jordan valley, it does not show much faith in the palestinians/former jordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the only options are parts of northern Israel with hundreds of thousands of Arabs, or parts of the Negev desert?
> 
> Sounds like you want to make an offer the Palestinians must refuse.
> 
> 
> 
> How about instead Israel offers Palestine a 1 to 1 swap, settlement land for uninhabited Israeli land that's borders the West Bank.
> 
> Israel could just give Palestine a 5 mile wide extension of the West Bank border in the northern half.
Click to expand...




Why not to the south of the west bank and let the Palestinians use their skills to improve the land like the Jews have. How about the Palestinians swap settlements for East Jerusalem and Hebron that would be fair. The Israelis will deconstruct the two carbuncles and ship them to were the Palestinians want to re build them.

 The Palestinians were offered 98% of the original west bank with land swaps for the other 2% and the right of Jews to live in peace and safety in palestine by Israel. Now why did Arafat turn it down again ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.






 Had a change of view and reduced your fantasy figure from 1.2 million down to 800,000. When there was not that many Palestinians in Israel pre 1948. The ones that were there left willingly when told to by the arab high command.


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims pretty much kicked-out all their Jews already, didn't they, in the 1948-1975 timeframe. I seriously doubt that sizable Jewish communities exist in such countries any longer. I'm also guessing that what remains - all told - would fall far below the 800K mark; although I'd have to go digging-up demographic stats in order to be certain.
Click to expand...




 The Jews have been kicked out of their homes and property since islam raised its ugly head. As soon as  a Jew made the land fertile a muslim came along and stole it from him, then the muslim left the land to deteriorate and blamed the Jew's for putting a curse on him and his land. And so the cycle of Islamic atrocities and oppression carried on in the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
Click to expand...





*AND YOU ARE LYING*

 Which land did they grab then that was not handed back in the fullness of time. As for Jerusalem that was majority Jewish owned land taken in the 1948 land grab by Jordan.
 The arabs stopped the Israeli ships from passing through the straights of Tiran which was a breach of Maritime law and the Geneva conventions.
 Just what are these '67 borders and can you produce a legal document that states '67 borders. All I can find is UN res 242 that says :-

* Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*

No mention of any borders is there, that is an islamonazi LIE spread to justify their continual attacks on Jewish children.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jews can kick out 800,000 Arabs in order to make their state more Jewish, the Muslims can kick out 800,000 Jews to make their states more Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half of the 800,000 Arab refugees from Israel were forced out by the Israeli armies.
> 
> The only reason 200,000 remained in the north of Israel is because the officers refused to obey their orders to force out innocent Arab civilians.  This is too their credit and the Arabs of Israel owe them a big thanks for their humanity as many of their fellow Jews showed no such humanity.
Click to expand...





 WERE IS YOUR PROOF when even the Palestinians say they left willingly and lost everything. The truth is you are just a semi literate mouthpiece for islamonazi terrorist scum


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims pretty much kicked-out all their Jews already, didn't they, in the 1948-1975 timeframe. I seriously doubt that sizable Jewish communities exist in such countries any longer. I'm also guessing that what remains - all told - would fall far below the 800K mark; although I'd have to go digging-up demographic stats in order to be certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and those jews from arab lands are living in Israel for the most part now.  Arab states refuse to accept palestinians and keep them as refugees.  Jordan offered them citizenship and passports as well as a position as PM for arafat.  Arafat instead decided to try and over throw King Hussein which led to Black September.
> Citizenship was withdrawn in the WB.  A few thousand that were granted citizenship in Lebanon has also been withdrawn for their actions in Lebanon.
> 
> Try and be nice....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians in Jordan are all citizens.  The Palestinians in the West Bank also still have Jordanian citizenship.
Click to expand...





 And here is what HRW has to say about this

Jordan: Stop Withdrawing Nationality from Palestinian-Origin Citizens | Human Rights Watch

 Jordan should stop withdrawing nationality arbitrarily from Jordanians of Palestinian origin, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Authorities stripped more than 2,700 of these Jordanians of their nationality between 2004 and 2008, and the practice continued in 2009, Human Rights Watch said. 


* SO ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE A LIAR*


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by israeli leaders...they raised tensions, but the fact is the arabs had 100,000 soldiers at israel's border while israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: Six days and the land grab of jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...peace and more importantly acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am distorting history??? You people that think israel was the aggressor in the 6 day war are a minority. You really think israel would have attacked had egypt and syria not massed troops by its borders????
> why did the arab mass their troops at the border for, while making threats of annihalation?
> Why would israel risk its existence by attacking all those countries (who were backed by other states) that were 500 times its size? And if it was a planned land grab, why did israel offer the golan back to syria and the sinai back to egypt?
> As for capturing the west bank, israel begged jordan not to join the war, but they did. So you can't claim that israel's pre emptive strike was to take over the west bank.
> 
> [b]the proof: Six days and the land grab of jerusalem in your prayers.[/b]
> 
> huh? What do you mean ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the arabs were posturing...they never had a chance of success...that's why historians note it a pre-emptive strike...as for jerusalem, poetic license for effect...israel wanted jerusalem not the west bank and that is their position today.
Click to expand...





 and the arabs wanted the land from the river to the sea, and still do as all their charters prove


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to understand something concerning the expulsion of the Palestinians.
> 
> It happened mainly during the 47-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil war AND the 1948 Arab Israeli war, where BOTH SIDES were pushing each other away. During the 1948 war, the Palestinians joined the 5 Arab armies in trying to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea. The Jews pushed BACK, and won, resulting in the expelling of many Palestinians. Had the Arabs won, every Jew would have been expelled (and expelling the Jews meant pushing them in the sea since no Arab state would take them BACK in)
> 
> But they didn't, they lost. And all this complaining about how so many Palestinians were expelled is just being a sore loser.
> That's what they get for their Arab so called 'brothers' (  ) trying to destroy the newly founded state of Israel.
> 
> And you\d think they learned their lesson?? NOPE. In 1967, the Arab states did the same thing and lost AGAIN, resulting in more expelled Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND YOU ARE LYING*
> 
> Which land did they grab then that was not handed back in the fullness of time. As for Jerusalem that was majority Jewish owned land taken in the 1948 land grab by Jordan.
> The arabs stopped the Israeli ships from passing through the straights of Tiran which was a breach of Maritime law and the Geneva conventions.
> Just what are these '67 borders and can you produce a legal document that states '67 borders. All I can find is UN res 242 that says :-
> 
> * Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*
> 
> No mention of any borders is there, that is an islamonazi LIE spread to justify their continual attacks on Jewish children.
Click to expand...


Majority ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty...It is your Zionist distortions that are lies...An academy award for you...your lies are impeccable.

Still waiting for your sanity certification


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?? Where did you read that??
> 
> But you do have things a bit mixed up. It is the Palestinians who should thank Israel for not expelling every single one of them after the 6 day war and then AGAIN after the yom kippur war. Everyone though Moshe Dayan would expel them, but he let hundreds of thousands stay.
> 
> Had the Arabs won either war, there would not be a single Jew living between the river and the sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flapan maintains that events in Nazareth, although ending differently, point to the existence of a definite pattern of expulsion. On 16 July, three days after the Lydda and Ramlah evictions, the city of Nazareth surrendered to the IDF. The officer in command, a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman, had signed the surrender agreement on behalf of the Israeli army along with Chaim Laskov (then a brigadier general, later IDF chief of staff). The agreement assured the civilians that they would not be harmed, but the next day, Laskov handed Dunkelman an order to evacuate the population, which Dunkelman refused.[
> 
> 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




 One swallow does not a summer make.

 But what about this from just above your cut and paste, 

What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities.... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations.* Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward..*.. Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out!


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?
> 
> Of course not!
Click to expand...




 Like this :-

The Six Day War

 The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by  General Moshe Dayan, the Israelis Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956  Suez Crisis, the  United Nations had established a presence in the  Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region.  Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way  that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.

The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs  Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.

The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the  Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, historians wrote it as a pre emptive strike because that's what is was. Do you think Israel just assumed that they were going to be attacked?? They had intelligence that Egypt was planning a strike on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?
> 
> Of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like this :-
> 
> The Six Day War
> 
> The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by  General Moshe Dayan, the Israelis Defence Minister.
> 
> The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956  Suez Crisis, the  United Nations had established a presence in the  Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region.  Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way  that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.
> 
> Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.
> 
> The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs  Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.
> 
> The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the  Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.
Click to expand...


More distortions from a bullshiite site.

Firstly, I should point out that the History Learning Site is not produced by or affiliated to the BBC. The BBC do have some good resources both for school age students from primary (ie grade) schools through to high schools and for adults. Their take on the Norman Conquest, for example: BBC - History - British History in depth: The Conquest and its Aftermath


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War
> 
> Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack
> 
> At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]*
Click to expand...


Sorry but Egypt declared war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. So in effect Egypt attacked first by closing the straits. No land gab in evidence either as Egypt and Jordan both received their land back when the peace treaties were signed


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Surely if Israel acquired any land there would be documents* showing a treaty or agreement. Any land won would be defined by definite borders.
> 
> I don't see where that has ever happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt and Jordan for starters, then the UN armistice lines that were agreed as starting points for any future borders agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?
Click to expand...




Parts of the Jordan valley and parts of the Negev, for which Israel gave up parts of the Negev and islands in the dead sea 

The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty

Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22&#8211;23"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War
> 
> Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack
> 
> At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but Egypt declared war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. So in effect Egypt attacked first by closing the straits. No land gab in evidence either as Egypt and Jordan both received their land back when the peace treaties were signed
Click to expand...


Don't you get tired of you're lying and distortions? Your giving all you're cohorts the stain of double talk.

No one with authority of Historical analysis has written that Egypt started the 67 war. 

Keep lying, your passion shows.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the IDF said they thought Egypt was planning for war does not mean they knew of an immanent attack. Egypt must have known they would easily be defeated. Why would they plan for war without having the remote means of achieving their goals?
> 
> If you need help re-searching let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.
Click to expand...





 CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel acquire from Egypt an Jordan?
> 
> 
> 
> Why, check out your '48 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never seen one.
Click to expand...




 You have it is just that you deny them, like a spoilt brat


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are distorting history...the 67 war was a pre-emptive strike planned as a land grab by Israeli leaders...They raised tensions, but the fact is the Arabs had 100,000 soldiers at Israel's border while Israel had a 150,000 with far superior weaponry. The proof: six days and the Land Grab of Jerusalem in your prayers.
> 
> The Bullshiite stops here. I want to see peace to the 67 borders to make up for this travesty...Peace and more importantly Acceptance can only end this regional conflict.
> 
> Israel is an invading force not a defending one that you push...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND YOU ARE LYING*
> 
> Which land did they grab then that was not handed back in the fullness of time. As for Jerusalem that was majority Jewish owned land taken in the 1948 land grab by Jordan.
> The arabs stopped the Israeli ships from passing through the straights of Tiran which was a breach of Maritime law and the Geneva conventions.
> Just what are these '67 borders and can you produce a legal document that states '67 borders. All I can find is UN res 242 that says :-
> 
> * Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict*
> 
> No mention of any borders is there, that is an islamonazi LIE spread to justify their continual attacks on Jewish children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Majority ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty...It is your Zionist distortions that are lies...An academy award for you...your lies are impeccable.
> 
> Still waiting for your sanity certification
Click to expand...





I am waiting for yours, cos only an insane person or an islamonazi would deny the facts of history.

 So going on your criteria the Palestinians cant claim sovereignty over Palestine even though there are more of them than there are Jews.  Nice to know when you spout your shit the next time.

Now back to reality what land did Israel grab in the 6 days war that is still under Israeli ownership.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel, in the matter of 'who started the Six Day War of 1967'...

1...the Israelis, as a preemptive strike

2...the Arabs, by massing Egyptian and Syrian and Jordanian troops along the borders

...our colleague 'Phoenall' has already provided numerous sources in support of his position.

At worst, the Arabs acted on bad intelligence and bad advice from the Soviet-Russians, telling them that Israel was about to attack them, thereby causing them to mobilize and deploy, and, at worst, the Israelis, knowing they would probably win based upon their own and US shared intelligence data and analysis and opinions, preemptively attacked anyway, to be certain that they won and survived.

You have been playing a losing 'guardhouse lawyer' game, challenging his sources, and challenging the conventional common understanding of those events of 47 years ago, without much success, and seem intent on continuing to muddy the waters with an incessant campaign of source-challenges; he as fielded some respectable sources and done all that should be required of a minor point-reinforcing sequence, yet you are turning this into some kind of Cecil B. DeMille production; a cast of thousands and millions of dollars later... for what should have been a stage-skit in a townie summer playhouse.

Time for you to do some of the heavy lifting.

If you can conjure-up a sufficient quantity of credible analysis of the events leading up to the Six Day War of 1967, to disprove both the common understanding of those events and the various sources that Phoenall has served-up for you and the audience, then, perhaps, you'll get some traction with your seeming compulsion to disprove the commonly understood causes of the Six Day War, and perhaps you can convince some part of the audience, outside the realm of the handful of pro-Palestinian shills and sympathizers and sycophants and apologists around here.

Until you manage that, however, it's beginning to look as though our colleague Phoenall has successfully navigated the pitfalls on this one, to an extent sufficient for reasonable and credible discussion, and wins the day.

Either serve-up a knockout blow of your own - authoritative and decisive and credible to all - or let the damned thing go.

No shame in losing from time to time.

Happens to most folks, if you're 'out there' and pitchin' hard enough and long enough.

Let it go.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> provide us with an un-biased source...Do you think that if Egypt attacked the results would have differed significantly?
> 
> Of course not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like this :-
> 
> The Six Day War
> 
> The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by  General Moshe Dayan, the Israelis Defence Minister.
> 
> The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956  Suez Crisis, the  United Nations had established a presence in the  Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region.  Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way  that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.
> 
> Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.
> 
> The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs  Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.
> 
> The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the  Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More distortions from a bullshiite site.
> 
> Firstly, I should point out that the History Learning Site is not produced by or affiliated to the BBC. The BBC do have some good resources both for school age students from primary (ie grade) schools through to high schools and for adults. Their take on the Norman Conquest, for example: BBC - History - British History in depth: The Conquest and its Aftermath
Click to expand...





 No distortions but the truth that you cant handle, even if I produced an Islamic extremist site that said the same thing you would deny it because it goes against you POV. The site is one used to teach history in many schools including those with a large Islamic population.

 YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIABLY INSANE.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Main article: Controversies relating to the Six-Day War
> 
> Preemptive strike v. unjustified attack
> 
> At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[169] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.[169][170] On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.[171][172]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but Egypt declared war when it closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. So in effect Egypt attacked first by closing the straits. No land gab in evidence either as Egypt and Jordan both received their land back when the peace treaties were signed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you get tired of you're lying and distortions? Your giving all you're cohorts the stain of double talk.
> 
> No one with authority of Historical analysis has written that Egypt started the 67 war.
> 
> Keep lying, your passion shows.
Click to expand...






 Then do explain this which shows a timeline of events that not even the most ardent islamonazi lunatic could deny

* "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like this :-
> 
> The Six Day War
> 
> The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by  General Moshe Dayan, the Israelis Defence Minister.
> 
> The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956  Suez Crisis, the  United Nations had established a presence in the  Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region.  Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way  that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.
> 
> Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.
> 
> The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs  Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.
> 
> The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the  Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More distortions from a bullshiite site.
> 
> Firstly, I should point out that the History Learning Site is not produced by or affiliated to the BBC. The BBC do have some good resources both for school age students from primary (ie grade) schools through to high schools and for adults. Their take on the Norman Conquest, for example: BBC - History - British History in depth: The Conquest and its Aftermath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No distortions but the truth that you cant handle, even if I produced an Islamic extremist site that said the same thing you would deny it because it goes against you POV. The site is one used to teach history in many schools including those with a large Islamic population.
> 
> YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIABLY INSANE.
Click to expand...


There goes Phonynall. Has nothing of substance to attack when caught lying and distorting facts, so it attacks the messenger instead of the message.

Papers, please.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You can say whatever you want Pbel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel was not the aggressor in the war, nor did they start the war just because they fired the first shot.
> 
> BTW, Israel even warned Egypt that if they closed the Straits of Tiran again, that it would be an act of war against Israel (which it obviously was).
> 
> More proof that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel:
> 
> "Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[16][17] *Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[18][19] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 2223"*
> 
> The paragraph above is under the sub - title  *Summary of events leading to war*
> 
> Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions
Click to expand...


Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall, in the matter of the Six Day War of 1967...

For whatever little it's worth, coming from someone such as myself who is so blatantly pro-Israeli, and so hard-line in conjuring answers...

In my own humble opinion, you've done all that need be done, to assume a 'win' between yourself and our colleague 'pbel', related to the casus belli, and nothing more should be required of you, unless it pleases you to continue dragging 'pbel's inadequate and exhausted 'guardhouse lawyer' automatic gainsay defense up and down the basketball court for a while longer - but, at some point, somebody has to invoke the Slaughter Rule and call an end to this embarrassing one-sided contest. Just sayin'...


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall, in the matter of the Six Day War of 1967...
> 
> For whatever little it's worth, coming from someone such as myself who is so blatantly pro-Israeli, and so hard-line in conjuring answers...
> 
> In my own humble opinion, you've done all that need be done, to assume a 'win' between yourself and our colleague 'pbel', related to the casus belli, and nothing more should be required of you, unless it pleases you to continue dragging 'pbel's inadequate and exhausted 'guardhouse lawyer' automatic gainsay defense up and down the basketball court for a while longer - but, at some point, somebody has to invoke the Slaughter Rule and call an end to this embarrassing one-sided contest. Just sayin'...






He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults. When he can conduct himself as a decent adult then I might put him in his place again.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations.  However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context.  And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions.  It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States.  While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.

Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict.  Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, closing the Straits of Tiran is an act of war but closing Gaza's territorial waters is not.
> 
> 
> 
> CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				The illicit trade in small arms said:
			
		

> 1. Welcomes efforts made by Member States, regional and subregional  organizations in addressing the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, and encourages the establishment or strengthening, where appropriate, of subregional and regional cooperation, coordination and information sharing mechanisms, in particular, transborder customs cooperation and networks for information-sharing, with a view to preventing, combating, and eradicating illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons;
> Resolution 2117 (2013) Adopted by the Security Council
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the importance of measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including ongoing efforts at the regional and subregional levels;
> General Assembly Resolution 58/55. Promotion at the regional level in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe of the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calls upon States, when addressing the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, to explore ways, as appropriate, to more effectively address the humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their excessive accumulation, in particular in conflict or post-conflict situations, including by:
> 
> (a) Developing, where appropriate, comprehensive armed violence prevention programmes integrated into national development strategies, including poverty reduction strategies;​General Assembly Resolution 60/68. Addressing the negative humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their excessive accumulation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;
> 
> 8. Invites the Secretary-General and those States and organizations that are in a position to do so to continue to provide assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them;
> General Assembly Resolution 61/71. Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Encourages the collaboration of civil society organizations and associations in the efforts of the national commissions to combat the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects;
> 
> 6. Encourages cooperation among State organs, international organizations and civil society in support of programmes and projects aimed at combating the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them;
> 
> 7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;
> General Assembly Resolution 66/34. Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.

I hope this helps.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations.  However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context.  And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions.  It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States.  While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.
> 
> Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict.  Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> CORRECT as they are totally different things. Closing gazas waters is to stop the smuggling of weapons and munitions, covered by the Geneva conventions
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The illicit trade in small arms said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Encourages the collaboration of civil society organizations and associations in the efforts of the national commissions to combat the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects;
> 
> 6. Encourages cooperation among State organs, international organizations and civil society in support of programmes and projects aimed at combating the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them;
> 
> 7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons;
> General Assembly Resolution 66/34. Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> WERE IS YOUR PROOF when even the Palestinians say they left willingly and lost everything. The truth is you are just a semi literate mouthpiece for islamonazi terrorist scum





Phoenall said:


> He has lost, *he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults*.



Lots of research has been done by this showing that perhaps half of the refugees left on their own and the other half were kicked out by the Israeli forces.  Tens of thousands more were kicked out after the war even ended.  

Then Israel refused to allow Arabs who were still in Israel to return to their lands in Israel.

Pure racism.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> From your link we see this which destroys your argument
> 
> Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended
> 
> In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.
> 
> 
> *SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI*





Phoenall said:


> He has lost, he knows he has lost and *he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults*.



The USA and Israel considers the PLO Charter to have been amended and the anti-Israel resolutions to have been removed.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe.  The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?


*(COMMENT)*

There are general commitments that apply universally.   Not smoke, not at all.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe.  The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are general commitments that apply universally.   Not smoke, not at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


And the Palestinians have the *right* to defend themselves.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> No distortions but the truth that you cant handle, even if I produced an Islamic extremist site that said the same thing you would deny it because it goes against you POV. The site is one used to teach history in many schools including those with a large Islamic population.
> 
> YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIABLY INSANE.


 


Phoenall said:


> He has lost, *he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults*.



Do you have any evidence that they are not distortions?  Many websites add their own spin to historical events.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations.  However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context.  And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions.  It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States.  While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.
> 
> Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict.  Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
Click to expand...


You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe.  The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are general commitments that apply universally.   Not smoke, not at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians have the *right* to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Broken record, broken record, broken record.................


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations.  However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context.  And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions.  It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States.  While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.
> 
> Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict.  Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
> He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect
Click to expand...


Rocco is good on his accuracy.

He just needs to work on his relevance.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe.  The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are general commitments that apply universally.   Not smoke, not at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians have the *right* to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


The problem is that their definition of defending themselves is killing innocent civilians in Israel. Which explains a lot of the current situation of course


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
> He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco is good on his accuracy.
> 
> He just needs to work on his relevance.
Click to expand...

WTF is that supposed to mean?


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you prove it to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.
> 
> Palestinian Constitutition - First Part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link we see this which destroys your argument
> 
> Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended
> 
> In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.
> 
> 
> *SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI*
Click to expand...


In 2001 the first draft of a constitution authorized by the PLO's Central Committee, calling for a respect for borders, human and civil rights as defined under international law appeared.[18]
Regarding PLO reform
...
The PLO Constitutional Committee first convened in 2005, but hasn't met since 2006 and the provisions for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO are not yet adopted.[23]
In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.[23][24]

Israeli views

Although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did NOT revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was "hereby amended", the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat's letter on this declaration stated:
It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 and 10 September 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council.
The New York Times and others [25][26] quoted similarly language (the ambiguous phrase decides to amend is quoted instead of herby amended):
Formally, the resolution adopted by the council consisted of two simple clauses. The first declared that the council "decides to amend the Palestinian National Covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Israeli Government." The second ordered a new charter to be drafted within six months.[27]

"Peace Watch", an Israeli organization declaring itself to be "an apolitical, independent Israeli organization monitoring bilateral compliance with the Israel-PLO accords"[28] issued the following statement:

The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects.
First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a Future date.
As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved... There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended.

UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements - Page 4


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.
> 
> Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.
> 
> Palestinian Constitutition - First Part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link we see this which destroys your argument
> 
> Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended
> 
> In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.
> 
> 
> *SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2001 the first draft of a constitution authorized by the PLO's Central Committee, calling for a respect for borders, human and civil rights as defined under international law appeared.[18]
> Regarding PLO reform
> ...
> The PLO Constitutional Committee first convened in 2005, but hasn't met since 2006 and the provisions for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO are not yet adopted.[23]
> In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.[23][24]
> 
> Israeli views
> 
> Although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did NOT revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was "hereby amended", the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat's letter on this declaration stated:
> It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 and 10 September 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council.
> The New York Times and others [25][26] quoted similarly language (the ambiguous phrase decides to amend is quoted instead of herby amended):
> Formally, the resolution adopted by the council consisted of two simple clauses. The first declared that the council "decides to amend the Palestinian National Covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Israeli Government." The second ordered a new charter to be drafted within six months.[27]
> 
> "Peace Watch", an Israeli organization declaring itself to be "an apolitical, independent Israeli organization monitoring bilateral compliance with the Israel-PLO accords"[28] issued the following statement:
> 
> The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects.
> First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a Future date.
> As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved... There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended.
> 
> UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements - Page 4
Click to expand...


I believe you are correct, however, Oslo died in the late '90s.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link we see this which destroys your argument
> 
> Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended
> 
> In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.
> 
> 
> *SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2001 the first draft of a constitution authorized by the PLO's Central Committee, calling for a respect for borders, human and civil rights as defined under international law appeared.[18]
> Regarding PLO reform
> ...
> The PLO Constitutional Committee first convened in 2005, but hasn't met since 2006 and the provisions for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO are not yet adopted.[23]
> In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.[23][24]
> 
> Israeli views
> 
> Although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did NOT revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was "hereby amended", the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat's letter on this declaration stated:
> It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 and 10 September 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council.
> The New York Times and others [25][26] quoted similarly language (the ambiguous phrase decides to amend is quoted instead of herby amended):
> Formally, the resolution adopted by the council consisted of two simple clauses. The first declared that the council "decides to amend the Palestinian National Covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Israeli Government." The second ordered a new charter to be drafted within six months.[27]
> 
> "Peace Watch", an Israeli organization declaring itself to be "an apolitical, independent Israeli organization monitoring bilateral compliance with the Israel-PLO accords"[28] issued the following statement:
> 
> The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects.
> First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a Future date.
> As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved... There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended.
> 
> UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements - Page 4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are correct, however, Oslo died in the late '90s.
Click to expand...


and the palestinian charter has not official changed


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WERE IS YOUR PROOF when even the Palestinians say they left willingly and lost everything. The truth is you are just a semi literate mouthpiece for islamonazi terrorist scum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has lost, *he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of research has been done by this showing that perhaps half of the refugees left on their own and the other half were kicked out by the Israeli forces.  Tens of thousands more were kicked out after the war even ended.
> 
> Then Israel refused to allow Arabs who were still in Israel to return to their lands in Israel.
Click to expand...

This middle ground is, indeed, the truth of the matter, according to most intelligent analyses of the situation and events and developments of the 1947-1949 timeframe, and what is commonly and broadly understood and accepted out in the Real World.



> "..._Pure racism._"


Incorrect.

That would be a contest between White and Brown, and actions based largely on skin-color.

This was a contest between Jews and Muslims, and between Euro-Jewish culture and Arab culture, with actions based largely on religion and cultural loyalties, without respect to race.

And, given that some sizable minority percentage of the Jews of the region had been there for centuries and were largely and genetically very similar to the Arab-Muslim genetics of the region, the argument for 'racism' is further weakened.

Pure racism?

I'm not sure that there was even enough '_diluted_' racism at-work here, to play a _substantive_ part in those proceedings of 65-70 years ago.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

I'm not sure this is true.



Victory67 said:


> The USA and Israel considers the PLO Charter to have been amended and the anti-Israel resolutions to have been removed.


*(COMMENT)*

I can not see where The PLO Executive Committee made any change to the National Charter _(still posted to this day on the PLO Web site)_.  I see the Arafat Letter, but I don't see where it was actually implemented.



			
				Palestinian views:  Reportedly said:
			
		

> The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations... evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side... The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage... was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship.[29][30]
> In January 1998, before the second Gaza meeting, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, stated "There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out".[31]
> PLO spokesman Marwan Kanafani was videotaped telling reporters, "This is not an amendment. This is a license to start a new charter."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UN Yearbook 1998 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Palestinian National Council (PNC) declared its readiness in April 1996 to change the document, the only practical step taken was the empowerment of a legal committee to draft a new Covenant for presentation at a future date. In May 1996, PNC Chairman Selim Zaanoun asserted that the Covenant had been amended but added that no specific articles were cancelled, and in an interview on 22 January 1998 the head of the PNC's legal committee, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, stated that the changes had not been carried out. Israel pointed out that Chairman Arafat had committed himself to the Note for the Record of the Hebron Protocol, an agreement which included the principle of reciprocity: Israel would not be expected to implement its commitments if the PLO did not fulfil its pledges, including its pledge to revise the Covenant.
> *SOURCE:* YEARBOOK OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1998 VOL. 52 31 December 1998
> 
> 
> 
> *SOURCE:* Palestinian National Covenant From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Do you have new information?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.
> 
> Are you just blowing smoke again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
> He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco is good on his accuracy.
> 
> He just needs to work on his relevance.
Click to expand...


I disagree. He is excellent with both.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

What are you using as a basis for this "*right* to defend themselves?"



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe.  The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are general commitments that apply universally.   Not smoke, not at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians have the *right* to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that their definition of defending themselves is killing innocent civilians in Israel. Which explains a lot of the current situation of course
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Remembering of course that even under Humanitarian Law, the Occupation Force (in this case the Israelis) have the right to respond:



			
				Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
			
		

> Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 *may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons*, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ GCIV



Any action through Jihad or the Fedayeen that crosses the 1949 Armistice Line is an international offense; remembering that under 



			
				Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States said:
			
		

> Every State likewise has the duty *to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement* to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_   Rule of Law Site:  General Assembly Resolution 2525



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

[MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], do you believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?

Does the 4th GC address this at all?


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], do you believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?
> 
> Does the 4th GC address this at all?



Sometimes people need to accept the things they cannot change and adapt to the new.
Work within the system to change what you can.

Muslims have the ability to think of tomorrow as if a thousand years from now.  Patience and peaceful change.


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

Answering in reverse order.



Victory67 said:


> [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], do you believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?
> 
> Does the 4th GC address this at all?


*(COMMENT)*


Q1:  Does the 4th GC address this at all?

NO!  It does not address it directly; but indirectly.  The GCIV (Fourth Geneva Convention) addresses resistance in the reverse manner.  It stipulates how the protections extend to the people under occupation when they do form a hostile resistance movement.  



			
				Article 5 - GCIV said:
			
		

> Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that *an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would,* if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.



The real discussion (and stronger reference) deals with the right of self-determination while under occupation (_Primary Reference A/RES/49/148 - Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination_).  There is a relationship between Occupation and the Self-Determination in that there is an assumption that Occupation hinders the of Self-Determination.  However, the Right of Self-Determination does not imply a "resistance by any means necessary."  This is at odds with the view held long by the Arabs of the Middle East.



			
				THE ARAB CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM said:
			
		

> Affirming the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression *by whatever means*, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice.




(D)o you (meaning RoccoR) believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?

YES!  I do, with qualifications:

It is not a right as in law.  It is a right, in that it is a self-determination _(an individual or collective decision made on the part of the people)_.  But like all decisions that defy the standing powers in control _(sovereign or occupation)_, there is a consequence for the action of resistance; should it fail. (Article 5, GCIV)
The right does not extend to a resistance by any means.  "Nothing can justify terrorism &#8212; ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts."  (UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon)  Nor does this it allow the targeting of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed _hors de_ combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.  (Article 3, GCIV)  You cannot target non-combatants, children in school buses, old people in wheel chairs, or simply fire (direct or indirect into civilian populated areas), _etc_.

I hope I answered your question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

Interesting POV.  Occupied persons have the right to fight for self-determination but there are legal consequences to those actions if they involve violence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> What are you using as a basis for this "*right* to defend themselves?"
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians have the *right* to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that their definition of defending themselves is killing innocent civilians in Israel. Which explains a lot of the current situation of course
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remembering of course that even under Humanitarian Law, the Occupation Force (in this case the Israelis) have the right to respond:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 *may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons*, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ GCIV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any action through Jihad or the Fedayeen that crosses the 1949 Armistice Line is an international offense; remembering that under
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty *to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement* to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_   Rule of Law Site:  General Assembly Resolution 2525
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It is Palestine on both sides of the armistice lines. Which part of Palestine are the Palestinians not supposed to be?



> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> 4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
> 
> 5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> 6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237


----------



## Kondor3

They have a right to fight for self determination.

They also have a right to die for self determination.

And their militias do that exceedingly well, and in huge numbers.

At least the Palestinians managed to get something right.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> They have a right to fight for self determination.
> 
> They also have a right to die for self determination.
> 
> And their militias do that exceedingly well, and in huge numbers.
> 
> At least the Palestinians managed to get something right.



If it wasn't for the 1st Intifada, Israel would have surely annexed the entire West Bank.

Sometimes violence does bring positive results.   In this case it led to an Israeli military withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank and a decades long peace process.

We should all give our thanks to the 1st Intifada for cracking the wall of Israeli arrogance.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to fight for self determination.
> 
> They also have a right to die for self determination.
> 
> And their militias do that exceedingly well, and in huge numbers.
> 
> At least the Palestinians managed to get something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for the 1st Intifada, Israel would have surely annexed the entire West Bank.
> 
> Sometimes violence does bring positive results.   In this case it led to an Israeli military withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank and a decades long peace process.
> 
> We should all give our thanks to the 1st Intifada for cracking the wall of Israeli arrogance.
Click to expand...


The Intifada of the 90s led directly to today where the WBJs are being squeezed into a discomfort zone of their own making.
What a waste of potential brain power and contributions to mankind.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to fight for self determination.
> 
> They also have a right to die for self determination.
> 
> And their militias do that exceedingly well, and in huge numbers.
> 
> At least the Palestinians managed to get something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for the 1st Intifada, Israel would have surely annexed the entire West Bank.
> 
> Sometimes violence does bring positive results.   In this case it led to an Israeli military withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank and a decades long peace process.
> 
> We should all give our thanks to the 1st Intifada for cracking the wall of Israeli arrogance.
Click to expand...








Fuck your First Intifada...

And your Second...

And any Third your pissants care to dream up...

Because the Third will be the end of your miserable little pissant Palestinian militias...

The very end...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

This is a Jihadist and Fedayeen point-of-view.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is Palestine on both sides of the armistice lines. Which part of Palestine are the Palestinians not supposed to be?


*(COMMENT)*

West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The other side is the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Victory67,  _et al,_

Yes a POV...



Victory67 said:


> Interesting POV.  Occupied persons have the right to fight for self-determination but there are legal consequences to those actions if they involve violence.


*(COMMENT)*

Has there ever been a resistance movement that did not have consequences?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent

RoccoR said:


> Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes a POV...
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting POV.  Occupied persons have the right to fight for self-determination but there are legal consequences to those actions if they involve violence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Has there ever been a resistance movement that did not have consequences?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


My wife resisting my charm on rare occasions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> This is a Jihadist and Fedayeen point-of-view.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Palestine on both sides of the armistice lines. Which part of Palestine are the Palestinians not supposed to be?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The other side is the State of Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You can refute what I said if you like.

Mere say so doesn't count.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, in the matter of the Six Day War of 1967...
> 
> For whatever little it's worth, coming from someone such as myself who is so blatantly pro-Israeli, and so hard-line in conjuring answers...
> 
> In my own humble opinion, you've done all that need be done, to assume a 'win' between yourself and our colleague 'pbel', related to the casus belli, and nothing more should be required of you, unless it pleases you to continue dragging 'pbel's inadequate and exhausted 'guardhouse lawyer' automatic gainsay defense up and down the basketball court for a while longer - but, at some point, somebody has to invoke the Slaughter Rule and call an end to this embarrassing one-sided contest. Just sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults. When he can conduct himself as a decent adult then I might put him in his place again.
Click to expand...



*Keep up the double talk...*

Ask.com - What's Your Question?
Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 


 Source  

 The Six-Day War (Hebrew: , Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic: , an-Naksah, The Setback or , &#7716;arb 1967, War of 1967), also known as the June War, 1967 ArabIsraeli War, or Third ArabIsraeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. *The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise str... Read More »  
Go to: Ask Encyclopedia · Images · Videos  *

Browse Article: Background and summary of events leading to war · Military preparations · The fighting fronts · Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation · Casualties · 


Source: Wikipedia  


Related Questions:

 

Who won the six day war? 


 

Has the Israeli military declined in quality since the Six Days War and other successful actions? 


 

What was the Six Day War? 


View more Q&A »


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, in the matter of the Six Day War of 1967...
> 
> For whatever little it's worth, coming from someone such as myself who is so blatantly pro-Israeli, and so hard-line in conjuring answers...
> 
> In my own humble opinion, you've done all that need be done, to assume a 'win' between yourself and our colleague 'pbel', related to the casus belli, and nothing more should be required of you, unless it pleases you to continue dragging 'pbel's inadequate and exhausted 'guardhouse lawyer' automatic gainsay defense up and down the basketball court for a while longer - but, at some point, somebody has to invoke the Slaughter Rule and call an end to this embarrassing one-sided contest. Just sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults. When he can conduct himself as a decent adult then I might put him in his place again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Keep up the double talk...*
> 
> Ask.com - What's Your Question?
> Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> The Six-Day War (Hebrew: , Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim; Arabic: , an-Naksah, The Setback or , &#7716;arb 1967, War of 1967), also known as the June War, 1967 ArabIsraeli War, or Third ArabIsraeli War, was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. *The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise str... Read More »
> Go to: Ask Encyclopedia · Images · Videos  *
> 
> Browse Article: Background and summary of events leading to war · Military preparations · The fighting fronts · Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation · Casualties ·
> 
> 
> Source: Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Related Questions:
> 
> 
> 
> Who won the six day war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Israeli military declined in quality since the Six Days War and other successful actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the Six Day War?
> 
> 
> View more Q&A »
Click to expand...


It seems that everything Israel ever does is a surprise to their Arab neighbors.
How dumb can these Arab neighbors be?
Dumb enough to line up tanks along Israel's borders and not expect a preemptive attack.
Patton would be proud of the Arabs...NOT!


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have a right to fight for self determination.
> 
> They also have a right to die for self determination.
> 
> And their militias do that exceedingly well, and in huge numbers.
> 
> At least the Palestinians managed to get something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for the 1st Intifada, Israel would have surely annexed the entire West Bank.
> 
> Sometimes violence does bring positive results.   In this case it led to an Israeli military withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank and a decades long peace process.
> 
> We should all give our thanks to the 1st Intifada for cracking the wall of Israeli arrogance.
Click to expand...


OMG!  The first intafada was sparked by a car crash at a gaza check point and went on for six years.  It led to Jordan cutting ties with the west bank because if the PLO, Arafat come out of exile in Tunisia and it resulted in the Oslo accord.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

This is not what I say, but what the Palestinians say.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Jihadist and Fedayeen point-of-view.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Palestine on both sides of the armistice lines. Which part of Palestine are the Palestinians not supposed to be?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The other side is the State of Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can refute what I said if you like.
> 
> Mere say so doesn't count.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				Negotiations Affairs Department - PLO - The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background:   said:
			
		

> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> .
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> .
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Borders



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> OMG!  The first intafada was sparked by a car crash at a gaza check point and went on for six years.  It led to Jordan cutting ties with the west bank because if the PLO, Arafat come out of exile in Tunisia and it resulted in the Oslo accord.



The First Intifada led to peace talks, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and the Israeli withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank.  That's what I call "progress".


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> This is not what I say, but what the Palestinians say.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Jihadist and Fedayeen point-of-view.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The other side is the State of Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can refute what I said if you like.
> 
> Mere say so doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiations Affairs Department - PLO - The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background:   said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> .
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> .
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Borders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco, Tinmore is so stuck on being belligerent, he would argue with Abbas.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  The first intafada was sparked by a car crash at a gaza check point and went on for six years.  It led to Jordan cutting ties with the west bank because if the PLO, Arafat come out of exile in Tunisia and it resulted in the Oslo accord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Intifada led to peace talks, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and the Israeli withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank.  That's what I call "progress".
Click to expand...


And the second Intifada was caused by Sharon visiting the Mount.
Don't these stupid Jews realize the Mount is only for ARABS!
Man, those Arabs are racists!


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  The first intafada was sparked by a car crash at a gaza check point and went on for six years.  It led to Jordan cutting ties with the west bank because if the PLO, Arafat come out of exile in Tunisia and it resulted in the Oslo accord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Intifada led to peace talks, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and the Israeli withdrawal from almost 50% of the West Bank.  That's what I call "progress".
Click to expand...


military withdrawal from jericho and area A


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> And the second Intifada was caused by Sharon visiting the Mount.  Don't these stupid Jews realize the Mount is only for ARABS!
> Man, those Arabs are racists!



The 2nd Intifada was a tragic mistake and I didn't support it.

The 1st Intifada?  Totally justified expression of anger at injustice and war crimes.


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the second Intifada was caused by Sharon visiting the Mount.  Don't these stupid Jews realize the Mount is only for ARABS!
> Man, those Arabs are racists!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Intifada was a tragic mistake and I didn't support it.
> 
> The 1st Intifada?  Totally justified expression of anger at injustice and war crimes.
Click to expand...


Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.


----------



## pbel

aris2chat said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the second Intifada was caused by Sharon visiting the Mount.  Don't these stupid Jews realize the Mount is only for ARABS!
> Man, those Arabs are racists!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Intifada was a tragic mistake and I didn't support it.
> 
> The 1st Intifada?  Totally justified expression of anger at injustice and war crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
Click to expand...


*People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Intifada was a tragic mistake and I didn't support it.
> 
> The 1st Intifada?  Totally justified expression of anger at injustice and war crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*
Click to expand...


dying is not dignity, living and helping other with grace is.


----------



## Indeependent

aris2chat said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the second Intifada was caused by Sharon visiting the Mount.  Don't these stupid Jews realize the Mount is only for ARABS!
> Man, those Arabs are racists!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Intifada was a tragic mistake and I didn't support it.
> 
> The 1st Intifada?  Totally justified expression of anger at injustice and war crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
Click to expand...


Arafat had to sustain the hostilities in order to maintain his wife in her French Castle.


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Intifada was a tragic mistake and I didn't support it.
> 
> The 1st Intifada?  Totally justified expression of anger at injustice and war crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arafat had to sustain the hostilities in order to maintain his wife in her French Castle.
Click to expand...


How many Israeli politicians and PM's or their families indicted or convicted for corruption?


----------



## pbel

aris2chat said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dying is not dignity, living and helping other with grace is.
Click to expand...


Oh yes your Ladyship Madame Limpwillow, we shall serve you gracefully for slowly starving us and letting us breathe...

Hello Space?


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat had to sustain the hostilities in order to maintain his wife in her French Castle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Israeli politicians and PM's or their families indicted or convicted for corruption?
Click to expand...


don't know about familes, no PM, but 1 president and 12 MK have been convicted of crimes or misdemeanors.


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since Arafat and Rajoub approved the plans for the temple mount visit weeks in advance. They set up Sharon and gave Arafat a way out of the peace deal.  Sharon want to meet Arafat on the mount and shake hand.  Arafat want to incite violence.  Bus loads of rocks were move to the mount in advance.
> Sharon had been to the mount several times before, as had many of the MK without incidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arafat had to sustain the hostilities in order to maintain his wife in her French Castle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Israeli politicians and PM's or their families indicted or convicted for corruption?
Click to expand...


I agree...way too many.
I don't know, though, if they extended hostilities to raise money.


----------



## docmauser1

pbel said:


> *People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*


Why don't they do that then?


----------



## Kondor3

docmauser1 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't they do that then?
Click to expand...

"And thereby decrease the surplus population?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> _...People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose._


Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...

Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...

It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...
> 
> Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...
> 
> It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...



What about all the Jews who ran from the Muslim countries like rats after 1948?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...
> 
> Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...
> 
> It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the Jews who ran from the Muslim countries like rats after 1948?
Click to expand...


They weren't running AWAY, they were running TOWARDS.
And THAT'S what's killing you.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> They weren't running AWAY, they were running TOWARDS.  And THAT'S what's killing you.



No, they ran away like rats.  What's killing me is your anti-Semitism.

Its very sad to see.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...
> 
> Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...
> 
> It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the Jews who ran from the Muslim countries like rats after 1948?
Click to expand...

What about 'em?

The Arabs who ran in 1948 in Palestine were in the majority, with a history of hostility against their Jewish neighbors.

The Jews who ran from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe were in the minority and hopelessly outnumbered and with zero history of fighting their Muslim neighbors.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> What about 'em?
> 
> The Arabs who ran in 1948 in Palestine were in the majority, with a history of hostility against their Jewish neighbors.
> 
> The Jews who ran from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe were in the minority and hopelessly outnumbered and with zero history of fighting their Muslim masters.
> 
> Next slide, please.



Last I heard the Jews of the Muslim world weren't the most modest or friendly guests.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about 'em?
> 
> The Arabs who ran in 1948 in Palestine were in the majority, with a history of hostility against their Jewish neighbors.
> 
> The Jews who ran from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe were in the minority and hopelessly outnumbered and with zero history of fighting their Muslim masters.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard the Jews of the Muslim world weren't the most modest or friendly guests.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with who ran despite overwhelming numbers in their favor?


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> What does that have to do with who ran despite overwhelming numbers in their favor?



Cowardice is no excuse for fleeing like a rat.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with who ran despite overwhelming numbers in their favor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowardice is no excuse for fleeing like a rat.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

_Especially_ when you're in the overwhelming majority and you *STILL* run.

Rather like the Pals did in the _Great Skeddadle_ of 1948.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about 'em?
> 
> The Arabs who ran in 1948 in Palestine were in the majority, with a history of hostility against their Jewish neighbors.
> 
> The Jews who ran from Muslim countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe were in the minority and hopelessly outnumbered and with zero history of fighting their Muslim masters.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard the Jews of the Muslim world weren't the most modest or friendly guests.
Click to expand...


What does this mean "modest or friendly guests"?  They were law-abiding citizens.  I have a friend whose family was expelled from Egypt.  That's why Israel was created.


----------



## Victory67

ForeverYoung436 said:


> What does this mean "modest or friendly guests"?  They were law-abiding citizens.  I have a friend whose family was expelled from Egypt.  That's why Israel was created.



As were most Arabs in Palestine.

The Jews still kicked them out.


----------



## docmauser1

Victory67 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this mean "modest or friendly guests"?  They were law-abiding citizens.  I have a friend whose family was expelled from Egypt.  That's why Israel was created.
> 
> 
> 
> As were most Arabs in Palestine. The Jews still kicked them out.
Click to expand...

They wish they did, of course.


----------



## Victory67

docmauser1 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this mean "modest or friendly guests"?  They were law-abiding citizens.  I have a friend whose family was expelled from Egypt.  That's why Israel was created.
> 
> 
> 
> As were most Arabs in Palestine. The Jews still kicked them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wish they did, of course.
Click to expand...


Arab population of Israel went from more than a million to 156,000.

Thats called ethnic cleansing.


----------



## docmauser1

Victory67 said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As were most Arabs in Palestine. The Jews still kicked them out.
> 
> 
> 
> They wish they did, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab population of Israel went from more than a million to 156,000. Thats called ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...

Is it a new term for "population exchange"?


----------



## MHunterB

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...
> 
> Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...
> 
> It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the Jews who ran from the Muslim countries like rats after 1948?
Click to expand...


Been watching Fritz Hippler films again,  have you?


----------



## Sally

MHunterB said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...
> 
> Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...
> 
> It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the Jews who ran from the Muslim countries like rats after 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been watching Fritz Hippler films again,  have you?
Click to expand...


Say, let us mention all the Egyptian soldiers who left their footwear in the Sinai.  If Victory had been born at that time, he might have left Gaza and joined those Egyptian soldiers who ran away from the Israelis.  Maybe during his summer break from school, he can help out Al Qaeda in Gaza now.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with who ran despite overwhelming numbers in their favor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cowardice is no excuse for fleeing like a rat.
Click to expand...


Your reading comprehension is pretty brutal.

The Jews who were expelled had no other choice, as they were surrounded in EVERY direction by over a billion of hostile Muslims

The 'Palestinians' ran in despite of being an overwhelming majority AND having the surrounding Arab states on their side. Now THAT'S what I call running away like a dirty rat


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As were most Arabs in Palestine. The Jews still kicked them out.
> 
> 
> 
> They wish they did, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arab population of Israel went from more than a million to 156,000.
> 
> Thats called ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...


No, it's called running away like rats


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Your reading comprehension is pretty brutal.
> 
> The Jews who were expelled had no other choice, as they were surrounded in EVERY direction by over a billion of hostile Muslims
> 
> The 'Palestinians' ran in despite of being an overwhelming majority AND having the surrounding Arab states on their side. Now THAT'S what I call running away like a dirty rat



Now you're just lying.  A good 50% of the so-called Jewish refugees left becuase they chose to leave.  That's why Jews still live in Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wish they did, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab population of Israel went from more than a million to 156,000.
> 
> Thats called ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called running away like rats
Click to expand...


Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't running AWAY, they were running TOWARDS.  And THAT'S what's killing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they ran away like rats.  What's killing me is your anti-Semitism.
> 
> Its very sad to see.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, the world is catching on to Israel.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab population of Israel went from more than a million to 156,000.
> 
> Thats called ethnic cleansing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called running away like rats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
Click to expand...

Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.


----------



## Indeependent

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called running away like rats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
Click to expand...


The Arab world, for the most part, was expecting a victorious Germany and thus never equipped their pawns for war.


----------



## Kondor3

Indeependent said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab world, for the most part, was expecting a victorious Germany and thus never equipped their pawns for war.
Click to expand...

"Be prepared"

One ignores that maxim at one's own peril.

Not to mention that they had two years following the end of the War to conjure-up compensating strength.

I guess the Jews just wanted "it" (victory, a country of their own) more.


----------



## Indeependent

Kondor3 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab world, for the most part, was expecting a victorious Germany and thus never equipped their pawns for war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Be prepared"
> 
> One ignores that maxim at one's own peril.
> 
> Not to mention that they had two years following the end of the War to conjure-up compensating strength.
> 
> I guess the Jews just wanted "it" (victory, a country of their own) more.
Click to expand...


Certainly the surrounding Arab Monarchs were not going empower their pawns.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called running away like rats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
Click to expand...


Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.

Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab population of Israel went from more than a million to 156,000.
> 
> Thats called ethnic cleansing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's called running away like rats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
Click to expand...


'Palestinian propaganda. Palestinian fled and were expelled during the 1947-48 Mandatory Palestine Civil War and again during the 1948 Arab - Israeli war

You know what a war is?? It's when BOTH sides are fighting each other. The difference is, the Jews won both wars. Had the Arabs won any of them, every single Jews would have been expelled. Stop whining because the Palestinians and Arabs kept losing wars they started.. 

You're too bias for anyone to believe what you say Tinmore.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
Click to expand...

Yes.

The Brits had disbanded most of the Palestinian militias and decapitated their leadership during the revolt of 1936.

The Jews had two (2) years.. 1945-1947... to build-up something viable, militarily.

The Arabs had had eleven (11) years... 1936-1947... to do the same...

Like I said, the Jews wanted the prize more than the Arabs, and hustled and did things in secret, to make it happen...

Major Arab Fail.


----------



## toastman

In other words, the Jews had their shit together, the Arabs didn't, specially during the 1948 war


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia. 

However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia. 



			
				Paragraph 8 said:
			
		

> 8.	The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.
> 
> This armed militia in each State shall, for operational purposes, be under the command of Jewish or Arab officers resident in that State, but general political and military control, including the choice of the militia's High Command, shall be exercised by the Commission.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947



The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.



			
				Refusal of the Arab Higher Committee to Participate said:
			
		

> The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948



After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:



			
				The Security Council Resolution 54 of 15 July 1948 said:
			
		

> Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; *that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator*, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,
> 
> 1.	Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/RES/54 (1948)  S/902  15 July 1948



The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you've run - like the Pals did in 1948...
> 
> Once you've hidden behind the skirts of your women and children - like the Pals do in operating bases and rocket-launchers from within their civilian population centers...
> 
> It's a little hard to make a Dignity Comeback...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the Jews who ran from the Muslim countries like rats after 1948?
Click to expand...


forced out by pogroms?

"Overall, the number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israels independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. The contrast between the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian refugees grows even starker considering the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation - most of the Jewish refugees traveled hundreds or thousands of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language and lived with a vastly different culture. Most Palestinian refugees traveled but a few miles to the other side of the 1949 armistice lines while remaining inside a linguistically, culturally and ethnically similar society. " @



Jewish refugees from Arab lands: Don?t forget what we lost, too | The Economist


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> forced out by pogroms?
> 
> "Overall, the number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israels independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. The contrast between the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian refugees grows even starker considering the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation - most of the Jewish refugees traveled hundreds or thousands of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language and lived with a vastly different culture. Most Palestinian refugees traveled but a few miles to the other side of the 1949 armistice lines while remaining inside a linguistically, culturally and ethnically similar society. " @
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish refugees from Arab lands: Don?t forget what we lost, too | The Economist



Actually the numbers are pretty similar.

The difference is that Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, didn't claim to be liberal Democracies and Israel did.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Brits had disbanded most of the Palestinian militias and decapitated their leadership during the revolt of 1936.
Click to expand...

It is true that most Palestinian leadership was imprisoned, exiled, or killed.



> The Jews had two (2) years.. 1945-1947... to build-up something viable, militarily.


Not really. Britain allowed/assisted the Jews to form militias to protect their settlements since the 1920s. There were some problems after the 1939 White Paper because the Jews thought that Britain reneged on its promise of a Jewish state.



> The Arabs had had eleven (11) years... 1936-1947... to do the same...


Not really, Britain stood on them to the end. Not to mention that Palestine was not being pumped full of foreign money like Israel.



> Like I said, the Jews wanted the prize more than the Arabs, and hustled and did things in secret, to make it happen...
> 
> Major Arab Fail.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Brits had disbanded most of the Palestinian militias and decapitated their leadership during the revolt of 1936.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is true that most Palestinian leadership was imprisoned, exiled, or killed.
> 
> 
> Not really. Britain allowed/assisted the Jews to form militias to protect their settlements since the 1920s. There were some problems after the 1939 White Paper because the Jews thought that Britain reneged on its promise of a Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs had had eleven (11) years... 1936-1947... to do the same...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really, Britain stood on them to the end. Not to mention that Palestine was not being pumped full of foreign money like Israel.
> 
> Major Arab Fail.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.
I couldn't have explained it any clearer.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.  I couldn't have explained it any clearer.



You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2009/01/words-of-theodor-hertzel-father-of.html


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The Brits had disbanded most of the Palestinian militias and decapitated their leadership during the revolt of 1936.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that most Palestinian leadership was imprisoned, exiled, or killed.
> 
> 
> Not really. Britain allowed/assisted the Jews to form militias to protect their settlements since the 1920s. There were some problems after the 1939 White Paper because the Jews thought that Britain reneged on its promise of a Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs had had eleven (11) years... 1936-1947... to do the same...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really, Britain stood on them to the end. Not to mention that Palestine was not being pumped full of foreign money like Israel.
> 
> Major Arab Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.
I couldn't have explained it any clearer.[/QUOTE]*
No, the real translation is the power of money...Israel was immensely helped by the richness of world Jewry and the Arabs were robbed of their natural resources with the collusion of corrupt Dictators, Sheiks, Kings that continues to this day.

The Arab Spring is the culmination, and the revolutions will bring back control of their resources.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Israel was a brand spanking new country without a military, and that it was relying upon militias that fought with each other as much as they fought with the Arabs, and given that the Arabs had militias of their own, this comes off as a damned weak attempt at excuse-making for running away like chickenshits and not standing their ground to defend home and hearth. Run away, lose the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.
> 
> However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal of the Arab Higher Committee to Participate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION​No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.21/7  29 January 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Security Council Resolution 54 of 15 July 1948 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; *that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator*, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,
> 
> 1.	Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> *SOURCE:* S/RES/54 (1948)  S/902  15 July 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.



Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that most Palestinian leadership was imprisoned, exiled, or killed.
> 
> 
> Not really. Britain allowed/assisted the Jews to form militias to protect their settlements since the 1920s. There were some problems after the 1939 White Paper because the Jews thought that Britain reneged on its promise of a Jewish state.
> 
> 
> Not really, Britain stood on them to the end. Not to mention that Palestine was not being pumped full of foreign money like Israel.
> 
> Major Arab Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.
> I couldn't have explained it any clearer.*
Click to expand...


*No, the real translation is the power of money...Israel was immensely help by the richness of world Jewry and the Arabs were robbed of their natural resources with the collusion of corrupt Dictators, Sheiks, Kings that continues to this day.

The Arab Springs is the culmination, and the revolutions will bring back control of their resources.*[/QUOTE]


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.
> 
> However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
Click to expand...


You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??

BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.
> 
> However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??
> 
> BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?
Click to expand...


I did already. You probably did not look at it.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.
> 
> However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??
> 
> BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?
Click to expand...

An attack by Israel?

What Israel?

Where were its borders?

Where is the link showing where its borders were, so that we know which land it legitimately held, and which land it intruded upon?

To serve-up some of our Pal-Apologist colleague's own words as counterpoint... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





<snicker>


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.  I couldn't have explained it any clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?
> 
> Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders
Click to expand...


Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?

I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.


----------



## Kondor3

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.  I couldn't have explained it any clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?
> 
> Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
> How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
> Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?
> 
> I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.
Click to expand...


And, of course, last I looked, Jews weren't blockading Jews, and building walls to keep them out, like the Egyptians are doing to the mad-dog Palestinians...


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.  I couldn't have explained it any clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?
> 
> Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
> How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
> Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?
> 
> I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.
Click to expand...


I think the solidarity is admirable, the problem is Money in Politics...


----------



## Hossfly

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation...Arabs don't give a damn about each other.  I couldn't have explained it any clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?
> 
> Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
> How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
> Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?
> 
> I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.
Click to expand...

I remember when Golda Meir came to New York and there were pictures in the Times and other papers. She came to the US and didn't even have a winter coat because of lack of money. And in the end she borrowed and was donated enough money for a new country. That's called enterprise.


----------



## P F Tinmore

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when Ben Gurion said he'd rather save 500,000 Jews and bring them to Palestine that save 1 million Jews and have them go to the Britain?
> 
> Window Into Palestine: WORDS OF Theodor Hertzel (the father of zionism) and Other Zionist Leaders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
> How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
> Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?
> 
> I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the solidarity is admirable, the problem is Money in Politics...
Click to expand...


Money cannot buy people's inalienable rights out from under them.


----------



## pbel

P F Tinmore said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; especially since what he said was a quip and had nothing to do with reality.
> How about when Golda Meir came to the US and asked a bunch of secular Jew businessmen for 25M and they gave 50M?
> Any other episodes of Jewish Solidarity you'd like to know about?
> 
> I know we can't compete with the Arabs when it comes to helping each other, but we try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the solidarity is admirable, the problem is Money in Politics...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money cannot buy people's inalienable rights out from under them.
Click to expand...


That's why the history of mankind is full of revolutions where the masses go after the money of the rich.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??
> 
> BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did already. You probably did not look at it.
Click to expand...


Where . What post


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

No nothing of the sort.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true. Israel started conscripting troops in December of 1947.
> 
> Britain had destroyed most of the Palestinian militias.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.
> 
> However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Armies prevented nothing of the sort, because nothing of the sort was attempted by the Israelis.  The Israelis, in hot pursuit of externally interfering Arab Armies attempting to defy the UN Partition Plan, assumed additional ground not originally allocated to the Jewish State.

There was not Palestine to have a legal impact on.  However there was the State of Israel.

I've read the Palestinian version of events.  Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:

"Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestines territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just love making up bullshit as you go along, right??
> 
> BTW, what attack on Palestine are you talking about ?? Can you provide a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did already. You probably did not look at it.
Click to expand...


You knowledge concerning what took place 1948 and before is so off Tinmore. 

You need to stop making things up, and stop reading crap from Al Jazeera, Press Tv, etc....


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> No nothing of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was the intent of the UK to leave both sides equally disarmed; no police and no militia.
> 
> However, there were provisions in the Partition Plan for a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs, having rejected participation in the implementation process, did not have the opportunity to set up the arrangements.
> 
> 
> 
> After the outbreak of hostilities, the Security Council noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab League, having refused - on several occasions - to accept a truce (noted above), only accepted the Armistice in 1949 when it was obvious they were at a military disadvantage on the battlefield; endanger of losing still more control over territory initially seized by force.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any perceived disadvantage was purely an excuse on the part of poor military commanders and the ineptitude of the Arab Diplomatic Corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Armies prevented nothing of the sort, because nothing of the sort was attempted by the Israelis.  The Israelis, in hot pursuit of externally interfering Arab Armies attempting to defy the UN Partition Plan, assumed additional ground not originally allocated to the Jewish State.
Click to expand...

Not true. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside the "allocated" land before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.



> There was not Palestine to have a legal impact on.  However there was the State of Israel.


I have proven many times that this is not true, but...oh well.



> I've read the Palestinian version of events.  Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:
> 
> "Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestines territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​



*(NO COMMENT)*
That looks like the Wikipedia version. I'm not going to comment on that.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> No nothing of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Arab armies prevented Israel from taking all of Palestine it was a separate war from Israel's attack on Palestine. It had no affect on the legal standing of Israel or Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Armies prevented nothing of the sort, because nothing of the sort was attempted by the Israelis.  The Israelis, in hot pursuit of externally interfering Arab Armies attempting to defy the UN Partition Plan, assumed additional ground not originally allocated to the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside the "allocated" land before the Arab armies entered Palestine.
> 
> And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.
> 
> 
> I have proven many times that this is not true, but...oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the Palestinian version of events.  Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:
> 
> "Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestines territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(NO COMMENT)*
> That looks like the Wikipedia version. I'm not going to comment on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*Not true. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside the "allocated" land before the Arab armies entered Palestine.*

More lies. Please tell us, when did these attacks take place ? Where? How many people died??

*And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.*

Still peddling that "Israel never acquired land drivel" I see. 
You completely made that crap up, and you know it. Please explain to me, what does 'acquiring land' have to do with anything? And more importantly, you still never answered this questions, which I've asked so many times: "where did you read that Israel had to acquire land in order to declare independence"

As for the partition plan never being implemented, what does it matter? Resolution 181 was the basis for both Israel and Palestine declaring independence


----------



## Victory67

According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs

1947?48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I may look like the Wiki version, but you would be wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the Palestinian version of events.  Even though the Arabs declared genocide on the Jewish in January of 1948, the Arab version sounds like this:
> 
> "Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestines territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That looks like the Wikipedia version. I'm not going to comment on that.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It comes from the third bullet point of the "The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background" extracted out of the Summary, The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD); pure Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You keep saying this, only because you mistakenly believe that both the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Agency had to accept.  And again, you would be wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.


*(OBSERVATIONs)*



			
				Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
			
		

> 4.	The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.
> 
> If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for *either* of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of *either* party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in *this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/169 17 May 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
Click to expand...




			
				The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department said:
			
		

> *1. Summary*
> The delineation and demarcation of agreed upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution. Our position on borders has undergone a significant transformation since 1948. Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, *we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital* (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create facts on the ground, building its Wall and more settlements amongst other things, grabbing more Palestinian land in violation of international law.​
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II),* as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/53/879   S/1999/334   25 March 1999
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Borders Summary
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

The salient points in the relevant passages are:

The Jewish agency had a Provisional Council of Government ready prior to April 1948.
The Arab Higher Committee did not invoke the dispute clause or bring an objection before the International Court of Justice.
The Successor Government to the Mandatory, made a report and public declaration that the Mandate was implemented.
The Palestinians agree to the international legitimacy of GA Resolution 181(II).
The Palestinians agree to the recognition of the borders as those established by the Armistice Lines.

I hope this was a clarification you can agree with.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You keep saying this, only because you mistakenly believe that both the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish Agency had to accept.  And again, you would be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, allocated is a misleading term. Land was allocated by the partition plan but since the plan was never implemented Israel never acquired that land.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONs)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.
> 
> If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for *either* of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/RES/181(II)  29 November 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Summary*
> The delineation and demarcation of agreed upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution. Our position on borders has undergone a significant transformation since 1948. Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, *we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital* (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create facts on the ground, building its Wall and more settlements amongst other things, grabbing more Palestinian land in violation of international law.​
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II),* as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/53/879   S/1999/334   25 March 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Borders Summary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The salient points in the relevant passages are:
> 
> The Jewish agency had a Provisional Council of Government ready prior to April 1948.
> The Arab Higher Committee did not invoke the dispute clause or bring an objection before the International Court of Justice.
> The Successor Government to the Mandatory, made a report and public declaration that the Mandate was implemented.
> The Palestinians agree to the international legitimacy of GA Resolution 181(II).
> The Palestinians agree to the recognition of the borders as those established by the Armistice Lines.
> 
> I hope this was a clarification you can agree with.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The Successor Government to the Mandatory, made a report and public declaration that the Mandate was implemented.



You keep posting that. What was implemented?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The establishment of the Jewish State.



P F Tinmore said:


> You keep posting that. What was implemented?


*(COMMENT)*

The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that. What was implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that. What was implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


I think you need an audience with Netanyahu to clear the air.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need an audience with Netanyahu to clear the air.
Click to expand...


Cool, do you think you could schedule a televised debate?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need an audience with Netanyahu to clear the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, do you think you could schedule a televised debate?
Click to expand...


Between you and Roccor where you constantly lose?
Or change strategies?
I think most people would tune out after 3 minutes.


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need an audience with Netanyahu to clear the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, do you think you could schedule a televised debate?
Click to expand...



Sure, Mr. Tinmore.  It would probably go just like this debate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lixYEZ9M_dU]benjamin netanyahu 28 years old - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What are you talking about.  What "foreign organization?"



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that. What was implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," the Provisional Government for the State of Israel declared independence.
CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD *APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION* FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947 MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT.​
The UN Palestine Commission was the designated Successor Government.  The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.  

You know all this, yet use your questions to attempt to confuse the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What are you talking about.  What "foreign organization?"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," the Provisional Government for the State of Israel declared independence.
> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD *APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION* FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947 MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT.​
> The UN Palestine Commission was the designated Successor Government.  The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
> 
> You know all this, yet use your questions to attempt to confuse the issue.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> The UN Palestine Commission was the designated Successor Government.



Isn't it the duty of a government to protect its citizens?

Where was it when Israel was driving the Palestinians out of their homes?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that. What was implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


LOL You're so full of propaganda shit.

Can you please show me the link you use to read about Israels DOI ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What are you talking about.  What "foreign organization?"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pursuant to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," the Provisional Government for the State of Israel declared independence.
> CABLEGRAM DATED 15 MAY 1948 ADDRESSED TO THE
> SECRETARY-GENERAL BY FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PROVISIONAL
> GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL​
> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD *APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION* FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947 MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT.​
> The UN Palestine Commission was the designated Successor Government.  The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
> 
> You know all this, yet use your questions to attempt to confuse the issue.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN Palestine Commission was the designated Successor Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it the duty of a government to protect its citizens?
> 
> Where was it when Israel was driving the Palestinians out of their homes?
Click to expand...


Why are you deflecting ??


----------



## Hossfly

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need an audience with Netanyahu to clear the air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, do you think you could schedule a televised debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Mr. Tinmore.  It would probably go just like this debate.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lixYEZ9M_dU]benjamin netanyahu 28 years old - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Just your typical Netanyahu "shoot 'em out of the saddle" response. They don't stand a chance.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The establishment of the Jewish State.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The portion of the Resolution agreed to by the Jewish Agency.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL You're so full of propaganda shit.
> 
> Can you please show me the link you use to read about Israels DOI ?
Click to expand...


Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

*My statement is correct.*


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You're so full of propaganda shit.
> 
> Can you please show me the link you use to read about Israels DOI ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
Click to expand...

So what? The so called Palestinians are all immigrants too. From Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Get the picture?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You're so full of propaganda shit.
> 
> Can you please show me the link you use to read about Israels DOI ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? The so called Palestinians are all immigrants too. From Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Get the picture?
Click to expand...


Not true, most Palestinians have ancestors who predate the Ottoman Empire.

I hear that a lot but the immigration statistics do not agree.

Actually, the Arab population *declined* from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.

Edit: Nice deflection though.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
> 
> 
> 
> So what? The so called Palestinians are all immigrants too. From Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Get the picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true, most Palestinians have ancestors who predate the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> I hear that a lot but the immigration statistics do not agree.
> 
> Actually, the Arab population *declined* from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.
> 
> Edit: Nice deflection though.
Click to expand...


Which means you are correct (in your mind) OR victory67 is correct (in his mind) .
You can't BOTH be correct on this issue.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
> 
> 
> 
> So what? The so called Palestinians are all immigrants too. From Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Get the picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true, most Palestinians have ancestors who predate the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> I hear that a lot but the immigration statistics do not agree.
> 
> Actually, the Arab population *declined* from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.
> 
> Edit: Nice deflection though.
Click to expand...

The Jews have ancestors who pre-date the Ottoman Empire, Arabs and Islam. Your move.


----------



## Victory67

Hossfly said:


> The Jews have ancestors who pre-date the Ottoman Empire, Arabs and Islam. Your move.



Name one Jew, just one, who can traces his ancestors back to Palestine.


----------



## Victory67

Hossfly said:


> So what? The so called Palestinians are all immigrants too. From Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Get the picture?



Research by Brits and Jews shows this to be false.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have ancestors who pre-date the Ottoman Empire, Arabs and Islam. Your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Jew, just one, who can traces his ancestors back to Palestine.
Click to expand...


Are you freaking kidding?
That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
Or that it's all ancient history.

You are so pathetic.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? The so called Palestinians are all immigrants too. From Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Get the picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, most Palestinians have ancestors who predate the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> I hear that a lot but the immigration statistics do not agree.
> 
> Actually, the Arab population *declined* from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.
> 
> Edit: Nice deflection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which means you are correct (in your mind) OR victory67 is correct (in his mind) .
> You can't BOTH be correct on this issue.
Click to expand...


I don't know what Victory's position is on these issues but:

Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

*My statement is correct.*​


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, most Palestinians have ancestors who predate the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> I hear that a lot but the immigration statistics do not agree.
> 
> Actually, the Arab population *declined* from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1948.
> 
> Edit: Nice deflection though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means you are correct (in your mind) OR victory67 is correct (in his mind) .
> You can't BOTH be correct on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what Victory's position is on these issues but:
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> *My statement is correct.*​
Click to expand...


None of this has ANYTHING to do with anything.

Israel lawfully declared independence after the cessation of the mandate


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true. Foreign organizations unilaterally declared Israel. The UN had nothing to do with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You're so full of propaganda shit.
> 
> Can you please show me the link you use to read about Israels DOI ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
Click to expand...


But what does this have to do with anything?

Why do you constantly bring up things that have nothing to do with nothing??


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have ancestors who pre-date the Ottoman Empire, Arabs and Islam. Your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Jew, just one, who can traces his ancestors back to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
Click to expand...


Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.



The so-called Kohain gene only shows common ancestry.  It doesn't say where the common ancestor lived.  It had no GPS tracking system, you idiot.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Which means you are correct (in your mind) OR victory67 is correct (in his mind) .
> You can't BOTH be correct on this issue.



We are not in disagreement on this issue, and this is just more idiocy from you.

Of course the Arab percentage of Palestine reduced from 1922 to 1948, as hundreds of thousands of Jews moved to Palestine.

Damn, read a fucking history book once in your life, please.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called Kohain gene only shows common ancestry.  It doesn't say where the common ancestor lived.  It had no GPS tracking system, you idiot.
Click to expand...


So I guess the whole history of mankind starting from Yehoshua through the Roman Conquest was made up in 1948 to get the WBJs out of "Palestine".


And you're calling ME an idiot?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> So I guess the whole history of mankind starting from Yehoshua through the Roman Conquest was made up in 1948 to get the WBJs out of "Palestine".
> 
> 
> And you're calling ME an idiot?



The Bible is a fantasy book not a history book.

The Kohain gene shows common ancestry from an unnamed individual.  There is no info regarding his location.  You're an idiot to believe otherwise.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the whole history of mankind starting from Yehoshua through the Roman Conquest was made up in 1948 to get the WBJs out of "Palestine".
> 
> 
> And you're calling ME an idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fantasy book not a history book.
> 
> The Kohain gene shows common ancestry from an unnamed individual.  There is no info regarding his location.  You're an idiot to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

The Bible is...

1. part history book

2. part chronicle

3. part cultural narration

4. part behavioral guide

5. part morality play

6. part metaphorical lesson-teaching fantasy novel

7. part Hebrew

8. part other people living hearby to the Hebrews in Antiquity

9. part credible

10. part incredible

11. part the philosophical foundation for the spirituality of more than 4,000,000,000 souls around the planet


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the whole history of mankind starting from Yehoshua through the Roman Conquest was made up in 1948 to get the WBJs out of "Palestine".
> 
> 
> And you're calling ME an idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fantasy book not a history book.
> 
> The Kohain gene shows common ancestry from an unnamed individual.  There is no info regarding his location.  You're an idiot to believe otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is...
> 
> 1. part history book
> 
> 2. part chronicle
> 
> 3. part cultural narration
> 
> 4. part behavioral guide
> 
> 5. part morality play
> 
> 6. part metaphorical lesson-teaching fantasy novel
> 
> 7. part Hebrew
> 
> 8. part other people living hearby to the Hebrews in Antiquity
> 
> 9. part credible
> 
> 10. part incredible
> 
> 11. part the philosophical foundation for the spirituality of more than 4,000,000,000 souls around the planet
Click to expand...


you forgot

12.  part fantasy book.


----------



## Indeependent

vic,
The fact that you can't read Hebrew isn't my problem.
What languages other than English can you read?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> vic,
> The fact that you can't read Hebrew isn't my problem.
> What languages other than English can you read?



Espanol and Deutsch.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> vic,
> The fact that you can't read Hebrew isn't my problem.
> What languages other than English can you read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Espanol and Deutsch.
Click to expand...


Very good.
I bet with all the Internet resources at your fingertips you couldn't give me five reasonable interpretations of the first verse of the Torah.

I'll go one further...there are NO set verses in the Torah.
The verses are artificial constructs to enable the Spaniards to debate during the Disputations.
The King James Version, which has led to so many bad versions of what you call Fairy Tales, is a HORRIBLE translation.

Of course, I know you don't care, but I felt like typing.


----------



## pbel

the torah is nothing but a handbook on how Tribal mentality allows you to conquer lands from your neighbors and kill them all...


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fantasy book not a history book.
> 
> The Kohain gene shows common ancestry from an unnamed individual.  There is no info regarding his location.  You're an idiot to believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is...
> 
> 1. part history book
> 
> 2. part chronicle
> 
> 3. part cultural narration
> 
> 4. part behavioral guide
> 
> 5. part morality play
> 
> 6. part metaphorical lesson-teaching fantasy novel
> 
> 7. part Hebrew
> 
> 8. part other people living hearby to the Hebrews in Antiquity
> 
> 9. part credible
> 
> 10. part incredible
> 
> 11. part the philosophical foundation for the spirituality of more than 4,000,000,000 souls around the planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you forgot
> 
> 12.  part fantasy book.
Click to expand...


Covered... see No. 6...


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Very good.
> I bet with all the Internet resources at your fingertips you couldn't give me five reasonable interpretations of the first verse of the Torah.
> 
> I'll go one further...there are NO set verses in the Torah.
> The verses are artificial constructs to enable the Spaniards to debate during the Disputations.
> The King James Version, which has led to so many bad versions of what you call Fairy Tales, is a HORRIBLE translation.
> 
> Of course, I know you don't care, but I felt like typing.



Only a fool like you would say a book that has no reliable English translation is legally binding.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are just trying to promote Xenophobia and Nativism as a form of justification for Jihadist and Fedayeen activities. 



P F Tinmore said:


> *My statement is correct.*


*(COMMENT)*

The original intent is plain and clear.  To protect the culture and the society of the Jewish People from the very unhealthy and selfish position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants (Arab Palestinians).  You are attempting to portray the Arab Palestinian as the beleaguered victim of the territory, when in fact they are an infestation of Anti-immigration activist using force to defy the UN Partition Plan.

Your statement is far from the truth.  If you consider the "Provisional Government" a foreign activity, then that is the same as claiming the Arab Higher Committee a foreign activity of the external Arab League. 

But more importantly, the tie to the WZO was a Mandate (Article 4).  And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

na·tiv·ism  [ney-ti-viz-uhm] 
noun
1.  the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
2.  the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.
3.  Philosophy . the doctrine that innate ideas exist.​
It is an unjustified Arab protectionist policy, used by the inferior to shield it from the advancements associated with a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> I bet with all the Internet resources at your fingertips you couldn't give me five reasonable interpretations of the first verse of the Torah.
> 
> I'll go one further...there are NO set verses in the Torah.
> The verses are artificial constructs to enable the Spaniards to debate during the Disputations.
> The King James Version, which has led to so many bad versions of what you call Fairy Tales, is a HORRIBLE translation.
> 
> Of course, I know you don't care, but I felt like typing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool like you would say a book that has no reliable English translation is legally binding.
Click to expand...


Are there good translations of the Illiad and the Osyssey?
Of course not; you have to learn the original language.

Show me in English where Leah named Judah because she was thanking God.
I dare you.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Are there good translations of the Illiad and the Osyssey?
> Of course not; you have to learn the original language.
> 
> Show me in English where Leah named Judah because she was thanking God.
> I dare you.



Since according to you there is no accurate English, French, or German translation of the Bible, that means its not legally binding as far as the UN or International Law is concerned.

You lose.  Take your religious idiocy elsewhere.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Indeependent said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> I bet with all the Internet resources at your fingertips you couldn't give me five reasonable interpretations of the first verse of the Torah.
> 
> I'll go one further...there are NO set verses in the Torah.
> The verses are artificial constructs to enable the Spaniards to debate during the Disputations.
> The King James Version, which has led to so many bad versions of what you call Fairy Tales, is a HORRIBLE translation.
> 
> Of course, I know you don't care, but I felt like typing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool like you would say a book that has no reliable English translation is legally binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are there good translations of the Illiad and the Osyssey?
> Of course not; you have to learn the original language.
> 
> Show me in English where Leah named Judah because she was thanking God.
> I dare you.
Click to expand...


I know Hebrew, and I would say the King James translation is a fair one, but not excellent.  For instance, in Genesis it says in Hebrew:  "Abraham was old and coming in days."  In English, that would not make sense.  So they changed it to:  "Abraham was old and full of days."  Different languages have different ways of saying things.


----------



## Indeependent

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool like you would say a book that has no reliable English translation is legally binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there good translations of the Illiad and the Osyssey?
> Of course not; you have to learn the original language.
> 
> Show me in English where Leah named Judah because she was thanking God.
> I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know Hebrew, and I would say the King James translation is a fair one, but not excellent.  For instance, in Genesis it says in Hebrew:  "Abraham was old and coming in days."  In English, that would not make sense.  So they changed it to:  "Abraham was old and full of days."  Different languages have different ways of saying things.
Click to expand...


Nope...That's not even close.
For fun, what does that mean?
He died at the end of the day?
He used every one of his days wisely?
He wasn't full of crap?

Actually, Avraham WAS old and "coming" in days as the work for "coming", Borh, means to engage in sexual intercourse and Avraham had children until he was VERY old.

Show me in English where Chavah (Eve) named Cain because she "Acquired" .
Show me in English why Cain "builds a city called "Node"?
Show me in English where Leah names Reuben because God has "Seen" .

I can go on and on where the Torah explains itself so that the explanation ONLY makes sense in Hebrew.
But of course, you are fully aware of that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Jew, just one, who can traces his ancestors back to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.
Click to expand...


OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.

*There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
Click to expand...


You are CORRECT!
The Torah has many commands regarding the respect Jews must have for righteous resident non-Jews; probably more respect than Muslims hold for each other.
In fact, God commanded Yehoshua to first request of the residents to behave according to the Noachide Laws and only kick them out of they refused.
Most of the 31 Kings refused because they liked engaging in sexual intercourse with sheep and sacrificing their children to fire gods.

But then I'm expecting you to have read a Bible.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
Click to expand...


That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are just trying to promote Xenophobia and Nativism as a form of justification for Jihadist and Fedayeen activities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original intent is plain and clear.  To protect the culture and the society of the Jewish People from the very unhealthy and selfish position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants (Arab Palestinians).  You are attempting to portray the Arab Palestinian as the beleaguered victim of the territory, when in fact they are an infestation of Anti-immigration activist using force to defy the UN Partition Plan.
> 
> Your statement is far from the truth.  If you consider the "Provisional Government" a foreign activity, then that is the same as claiming the Arab Higher Committee a foreign activity of the external Arab League.
> 
> But more importantly, the tie to the WZO was a Mandate (Article 4).  And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> na·tiv·ism  [ney-ti-viz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.  the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
> 2.  the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.
> 3.  Philosophy . the doctrine that innate ideas exist.​
> It is an unjustified Arab protectionist policy, used by the inferior to shield it from the advancements associated with a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."



The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.


----------



## Indeependent

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*
Click to expand...


Details, details.
Never let a fact get in the way of a thread.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are just trying to promote Xenophobia and Nativism as a form of justification for Jihadist and Fedayeen activities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original intent is plain and clear.  To protect the culture and the society of the Jewish People from the very unhealthy and selfish position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants (Arab Palestinians).  You are attempting to portray the Arab Palestinian as the beleaguered victim of the territory, when in fact they are an infestation of Anti-immigration activist using force to defy the UN Partition Plan.
> 
> Your statement is far from the truth.  If you consider the "Provisional Government" a foreign activity, then that is the same as claiming the Arab Higher Committee a foreign activity of the external Arab League.
> 
> But more importantly, the tie to the WZO was a Mandate (Article 4).  And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> na·tiv·ism  [ney-ti-viz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.  the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
> 2.  the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.
> 3.  Philosophy . the doctrine that innate ideas exist.​
> It is an unjustified Arab protectionist policy, used by the inferior to shield it from the advancements associated with a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
Click to expand...


From a bunch of nasty, bada$$ Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*
Click to expand...


Indeed, and that is the conflict in a nutshell. There is no other reason for it.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that is the conflict in a nutshell. There is no other reason for it.
Click to expand...


For people who are biased and know very little about the conflict like yourself, that might be a reason.

Then of course, there's reality


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that is the conflict in a nutshell. There is no other reason for it.
Click to expand...


A Humanistic State, even one such as Lebanon or Iran used to be, is anathema to the Muslims spirit.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that is the conflict in a nutshell. There is no other reason for it.
Click to expand...

The only people complaining about it are the Paliwogs and their un-supportive supporters who give them only lip service.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called Kohain gene only shows common ancestry.  It doesn't say where the common ancestor lived.  It had no GPS tracking system, you idiot.
Click to expand...




Try again as it is only present in those people who were members of the tribe of  Teachers amongst the Jews. So it is an indication of just were they lived, as strangely no Palestinians have this gene not even those that have bred with Jews.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Another misinterpretation.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.


*(COMMENT)*

It wasn't their country.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> _It wasn't their country._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Jump to: navigation, search 


For other uses, see Country (disambiguation). Not to be confused with County.





Topographical map of Europe.




 Same area as above illustrating territorial and political boundaries.
*A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction.*Sometimes the word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities,[1][2][3] while other times it refers only to states.[4] For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states".[5][Note 1]



Contents  [hide]


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which means you are correct (in your mind) OR victory67 is correct (in his mind) .
> You can't BOTH be correct on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in disagreement on this issue, and this is just more idiocy from you.
> 
> Of course the Arab percentage of Palestine reduced from 1922 to 1948, as hundreds of thousands of Jews moved to Palestine.
> 
> Damn, read a fucking history book once in your life, please.
Click to expand...




 I have and it is you that is wrong. From the start of the mandate the arab muslims kept pace with the increase at double the population of the Jews and Christians combined. That could not be achieved by breeding alone so it must have been by mass migration. Don't forget for every Jew or Christian means that they must give an increase of 2, so if the Jews and Christians increased by 50,000 then the muslims must increase by 100,000.  So for your hundreds of thousands of Jewish migrants means an increase of double that for the muslims.

 So might I suggest that you try reading a proper history book and not those published by pallywood productions.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

Let's take this down from the very general, to the specific we are talking about.



pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> _It wasn't their country._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Country
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> For other uses, see Country (disambiguation). Not to be confused with County.
> Topographical map of Europe.
> Same area as above illustrating territorial and political boundaries.
> *A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction.*Sometimes the word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities,[1][2][3] while other times it refers only to states.[4] For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states".[5][Note 1]
> Contents  [hide]
Click to expand...

*(SPECIFIC OBSERVATION)*



			
				EXCERPT:  UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the *United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine* after 15 May 1948.
> 
> "*Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.* Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.* The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the *United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement* regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."​
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948


*(COMMENT)*

Again, it wasn't their country.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which means you are correct (in your mind) OR victory67 is correct (in his mind) .
> You can't BOTH be correct on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in disagreement on this issue, and this is just more idiocy from you.
> 
> Of course the Arab percentage of Palestine reduced from 1922 to 1948, as hundreds of thousands of Jews moved to Palestine.
> 
> Damn, read a fucking history book once in your life, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have and it is you that is wrong. From the start of the mandate the arab muslims kept pace with the increase at double the population of the Jews and Christians combined. That could not be achieved by breeding alone so it must have been by mass migration. Don't forget for every Jew or Christian means that they must give an increase of 2, so if the Jews and Christians increased by 50,000 then the muslims must increase by 100,000.  So for your hundreds of thousands of Jewish migrants means an increase of double that for the muslims.
> 
> So might I suggest that you try reading a proper history book and not those published by pallywood productions.
Click to expand...


Modus operandi...Why be comprehensive when one can spout out one sound-bite at a time?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess the whole history of mankind starting from Yehoshua through the Roman Conquest was made up in 1948 to get the WBJs out of "Palestine".
> 
> 
> And you're calling ME an idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fantasy book not a history book.
> 
> The Kohain gene shows common ancestry from an unnamed individual.  There is no info regarding his location.  You're an idiot to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...




 And the Koran being based on the same stories must also be a fantasy book, and the Cohen gene shows a common ancestry on the matriarchal line that is only present in the Jews. No arab has that genetic fingerprint, not even one descended from the rape of a Jewish girl. The big give away is that the Jews who came from iran during the expulsion all had this same gene, as did the Jews that stayed in palestine


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fantasy book not a history book.
> 
> The Kohain gene shows common ancestry from an unnamed individual.  There is no info regarding his location.  You're an idiot to believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is...
> 
> 1. part history book
> 
> 2. part chronicle
> 
> 3. part cultural narration
> 
> 4. part behavioral guide
> 
> 5. part morality play
> 
> 6. part metaphorical lesson-teaching fantasy novel
> 
> 7. part Hebrew
> 
> 8. part other people living hearby to the Hebrews in Antiquity
> 
> 9. part credible
> 
> 10. part incredible
> 
> 11. part the philosophical foundation for the spirituality of more than 4,000,000,000 souls around the planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you forgot
> 
> 12.  part fantasy book.
Click to expand...





 Name a religious book that isn't


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> And the Koran being based on the same stories must also be a fantasy book, and the Cohen gene shows a common ancestry on the matriarchal line that is only present in the Jews. No arab has that genetic fingerprint, not even one descended from the rape of a Jewish girl. The big give away is that the Jews who came from iran during the expulsion all had this same gene, as did the Jews that stayed in palestine



I have some very bad news for you, dumbass.

J1E, also knows as the Kohain gene, is common among many people in North Africa and the Middle East.

And is very common within the Palestinians, Bedouin and others non-Jews of Palestine.

Haplogroup J-M267 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now, what about the so-called Levite gene?

Well that turns out to be very uncommon in the Middle East, but is very common in Eastern Europe, Western Russia, and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1a_(Y-DNA)


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Let's take this down from the very general, to the specific we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> _It wasn't their country._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Country
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> For other uses, see Country (disambiguation). Not to be confused with County.
> Topographical map of Europe.
> Same area as above illustrating territorial and political boundaries.
> *A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction.*Sometimes the word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities,[1][2][3] while other times it refers only to states.[4] For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states".[5][Note 1]
> Contents  [hide]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SPECIFIC OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT:  UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the *United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine* after 15 May 1948.
> 
> "*Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.* Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.* The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the *United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement* regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."​
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, it wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


ok whose country was it?


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Koran being based on the same stories must also be a fantasy book, and the Cohen gene shows a common ancestry on the matriarchal line that is only present in the Jews. No arab has that genetic fingerprint, not even one descended from the rape of a Jewish girl. The big give away is that the Jews who came from iran during the expulsion all had this same gene, as did the Jews that stayed in palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some very bad news for you, dumbass.
> 
> J1E, also knows as the Kohain gene, is common among many people in North Africa and the Middle East.
> 
> And is very common within the Palestinians, Bedouin and others non-Jews of Palestine.
> 
> Haplogroup J-M267 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Now, what about the so-called Levite gene?
> 
> Well that turns out to be very uncommon in the Middle East, but is very common in Eastern Europe, Western Russia, and India.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a1a_(Y-DNA)
Click to expand...


Ever hear of the Diapora?
What that means is that there are a heck of a lot of Jews in this world who may not yet know they're Jews.
I wonder if they'll go to Israel?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you freaking kidding?
> That's one of the arguments bolstered by the Kohen Gene..
> And now you're going to deny there ever was a First or Second Temple.
> Or that it was a fairy tale, including the Roman Conquest.
> Or that it's all ancient history.
> 
> You are so pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeological evidence shows that Jews/Israelites/ Hebrews have been there.  I've been to many museum exhibitions that show this.  That's why Jose keeps saying that today's Jews are somehow not related to the Israelites of the past.  But Jose is wrong about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
Click to expand...





 True but they can claim the longest uninterrupted residency in Palestine out of all the religious groups present. The arab muslims are the ones with the shortest residency out of them all


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Ever hear of the Diapora?
> What that means is that there are a heck of a lot of Jews in this world who may not yet know they're Jews.
> I wonder if they'll go to Israel?



You're an idiot if you think only Jews or their descendants could possibly have the Kohain or Levite "gene".

An idiot who doesn't know shit about human biology.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the Diapora?
> What that means is that there are a heck of a lot of Jews in this world who may not yet know they're Jews.
> I wonder if they'll go to Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think only Jews or their descendants could possibly have the Kohain or Levite "gene".
> 
> An idiot who doesn't know shit about human biology.
Click to expand...


So you admit there were Kohanim; that's a start.
I didn't know you were a biologist.
I also don't actively "dig" around the Internet around the clock looking for Jew hating web sites.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are just trying to promote Xenophobia and Nativism as a form of justification for Jihadist and Fedayeen activities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My statement is correct.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The original intent is plain and clear.  To protect the culture and the society of the Jewish People from the very unhealthy and selfish position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants (Arab Palestinians).  You are attempting to portray the Arab Palestinian as the beleaguered victim of the territory, when in fact they are an infestation of Anti-immigration activist using force to defy the UN Partition Plan.
> 
> Your statement is far from the truth.  If you consider the "Provisional Government" a foreign activity, then that is the same as claiming the Arab Higher Committee a foreign activity of the external Arab League.
> 
> But more importantly, the tie to the WZO was a Mandate (Article 4).  And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> na·tiv·ism  [ney-ti-viz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.  the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.
> 2.  the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.
> 3.  Philosophy . the doctrine that innate ideas exist.​
> It is an unjustified Arab protectionist policy, used by the inferior to shield it from the advancements associated with a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that simply was because the intent, well beyond the comprehension or sympathy of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, was to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
Click to expand...





 What country was that as we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was no palestinian nation until 1988, so they had no country to defend. But it was the arab armies that interfered with the process and invaded Israel in the belief that they could drive the Jews out and claim the land for islam. 

 If the Palestinians weren't hostile  then why did they start the riots in 1929, then the other attacks on the Jews before the British decided to give the Jews their own nation.


----------



## Indeependent

Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I'll spend all day reading this when you respond to how you can't explain dozens of Biblical verses without knowing Hebrew.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Jews were  not the first people there nor have they ever been the only people there.
> 
> *There is no historic precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt matter, because there has been a *JEWISH STATE CALLED ISRAEL FOR THE LAST 66 YEARS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that is the conflict in a nutshell. There is no other reason for it.
Click to expand...





And it is all the fault of the muslims who were instructed to kill all the Jews.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yeah, I'll spend all day reading this when you respond to how you can't explain dozens of Biblical verses without knowing Hebrew.



Sorry dickhead but the fact is the Kohain and Levite genes are common among lots of non-Jews.

They are not proof of origin from Palestine.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yeah, I'll spend all day reading this when you respond to how you can't explain dozens of Biblical verses without knowing Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dickhead but the fact is the Kohain and Levite genes are common among lots of non-Jews.
> 
> They are not proof of origin from Palestine.
Click to expand...


And how exactly is that related to your "If I throw enough anti-Jew sh!t at the wall something's eventually has to stick."?
The bottom line is that you are stating categorically that the Jews were invaders from Europe who have NO history in the Middle East.
Despite all the scriptural, historical and archeological evidence to the contrary.

You are entitled to your ignorance.

So when are the Arabs going to lose another war with Israel?


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> And how exactly is that related to your "If I throw enough anti-Jew sh!t at the wall something's eventually has to stick."?
> The bottom line is that you are stating categorically that the Jews were invaders from Europe who have NO history in the Middle East.
> Despite all the scriptural, historical and archeological evidence to the contrary.
> 
> You are entitled to your ignorance.
> 
> So when are the Arabs going to lose another war with Israel?



I was countering your post with facts, dumbass.   The Kohain and Levite genes don't prove ancestry from Palestine.

Especially the Levite gene which is most common in Europe.

Don't post things if you are going to cry like a little pussy when people prove its wrong.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

It is what they said.



pbel said:


> ok whose country was it?


*(COMMENT)*

It was territory under Mandate/Trusteeship; pending the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Victory67

The Mandate for Palestine set up a system to change the demographics of a territory so as to give independence and sovereignty to a people that were a small minority of a territory.

Meanwhile every other Protectorate and Mandate after WW1 was given independence and self-rule for the existing population and ethnic/religious dynamic.

The native people of Palestine must have felt very special to have been treated so very differently.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how exactly is that related to your "If I throw enough anti-Jew sh!t at the wall something's eventually has to stick."?
> The bottom line is that you are stating categorically that the Jews were invaders from Europe who have NO history in the Middle East.
> Despite all the scriptural, historical and archeological evidence to the contrary.
> 
> You are entitled to your ignorance.
> 
> So when are the Arabs going to lose another war with Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was countering your post with facts, dumbass.   The Kohain and Levite genes don't prove ancestry from Palestine.
> 
> Especially the Levite gene which is most common in Europe.
> 
> Don't post things if you are going to cry like a little pussy when people prove its wrong.
Click to expand...


Read your Gene thread.
The only person I hear making hay out of air on this topic is you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Ahh, so Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians. It belonged to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.


----------



## Victory67

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> 
> R
Click to expand...


  [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]

Please explain why Palestine should not have been given to its inhabitants for self rule.

Why, contrary to all the other Mandates and Protectorates, did Palestine not deserve Independence and self-rule, but instead deserved to be made victim to massive immigration so as to totally change the ethnic/religious dynamic?


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> It is what they said.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok whose country was it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was territory under Mandate/Trusteeship; pending the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Did the Arabs agree to the mandate created by Western Colonialism? Of course not, why would they?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Let's take this down from the very general, to the specific we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> _It wasn't their country._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Country
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> For other uses, see Country (disambiguation). Not to be confused with County.
> Topographical map of Europe.
> Same area as above illustrating territorial and political boundaries.
> *A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction.*Sometimes the word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities,[1][2][3] while other times it refers only to states.[4] For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states".[5][Note 1]
> Contents  [hide]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(SPECIFIC OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT:  UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the *United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine* after 15 May 1948.
> 
> "*Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.* Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.* The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the *United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement* regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."​
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, it wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty



It was an administration *assigned to* Palestine. It did not own Palestine. Palestine, like any other country in the world, is owned by its citizens.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, so Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians. It belonged to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.
Click to expand...


Criminals, LOL. No one said it belong to the Zionists from Europe, you're the one that brought that up

IT didn;t belong to the Palestinians. THEY HAD NO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not hostile. They were defending their country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> 
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION]
> 
> Please explain why Palestine should not have been given to its inhabitants for self rule.
> 
> Why, contrary to all the other Mandates and Protectorates, did Palestine not deserve Independence and self-rule, but instead deserved to be made victim to massive immigration so as to totally change the ethnic/religious dynamic?
Click to expand...


They fucked up when they refused to accept the partition plan


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Let's take this down from the very general, to the specific we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Country
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> For other uses, see Country (disambiguation). Not to be confused with County.
> Topographical map of Europe.
> Same area as above illustrating territorial and political boundaries.
> *A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction.*Sometimes the word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities,[1][2][3] while other times it refers only to states.[4] For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states".[5][Note 1]
> Contents  [hide]
> 
> 
> 
> *(SPECIFIC OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, it wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an administration *assigned to[/:  the world, is owned by its citizens.*
Click to expand...

*

Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens, hence all the other people making decisions for them

For someone who talks about Palestine so much, you seem to know very little about it.

You don't even know when they became a state   *


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians. It belonged to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals, LOL. No one said it belong to the Zionists from Europe, you're the one that brought that up
> 
> IT didn;t belong to the Palestinians. THEY HAD NO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND
Click to expand...


Then who had sovereignty? A bunch of criminals out of Europe?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> They fucked up when they refused to accept the partition plan



The people of the Ottoman Empire in Europe were given freedom and self-determination.

The people of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East were given self-determination.

But for some reason the people of Palestine were not given self-determination.

Please justify this.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians. It belonged to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals, LOL. No one said it belong to the Zionists from Europe, you're the one that brought that up
> 
> IT didn;t belong to the Palestinians. THEY HAD NO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then who had sovereignty? A bunch of criminals out of Europe?
Click to expand...


No PEOPLE had sovereignty over the territory. Why do you keep lying about this? And why do you keep ignoring Roccos links. And where are your links ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Let's take this down from the very general, to the specific we are talking about.
> 
> 
> *(SPECIFIC OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, it wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an administration *assigned to[/:  the world, is owned by its citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens, hence all the other people making decisions for them
> 
> For someone who talks about Palestine so much, you seem to know very little about it.
> 
> You don't even know when they became a state   *
Click to expand...

*

Link?*


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fucked up when they refused to accept the partition plan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the Ottoman Empire in Europe were given freedom and self-determination.
> 
> The people of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East were given self-determination.
> 
> But for some reason the people of Palestine were not given self-determination.
> 
> Please justify this.
Click to expand...


They turned down self determination when they refused to accept the partition plan


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was an administration *assigned to[/:  the world, is owned by its citizens.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens, hence all the other people making decisions for them
> 
> For someone who talks about Palestine so much, you seem to know very little about it.
> 
> You don't even know when they became a state   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Link?*
Click to expand...

*

Link for what ?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fucked up when they refused to accept the partition plan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the Ottoman Empire in Europe were given freedom and self-determination.
> 
> The people of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East were given self-determination.
> 
> But for some reason the people of Palestine were not given self-determination.
> 
> Please justify this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They turned down self determination when they refused to accept the partition plan
Click to expand...


*Another big fat Israeli lie.
*
The partition plan was irrelevant to self determination.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the Ottoman Empire in Europe were given freedom and self-determination.
> 
> The people of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East were given self-determination.
> 
> But for some reason the people of Palestine were not given self-determination.
> 
> Please justify this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They turned down self determination when they refused to accept the partition plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Another big fat Israeli lie.
> *
> The partition plan was irrelevant to self determination.
Click to expand...


It's not an Israeli lie. It's a *WORLDWIDE FACT*

Would the plan have given them self determination? Did they reject the plan ?

Your welcome


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens, hence all the other people making decisions for them
> 
> For someone who talks about Palestine so much, you seem to know very little about it.
> 
> You don't even know when they became a state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link for what ?
Click to expand...




Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens,


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They turned down self determination when they refused to accept the partition plan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Another big fat Israeli lie.
> *
> The partition plan was irrelevant to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an Israeli lie. It's a *WORLDWIDE FACT*
> 
> Would the plan have given them self determination? Did they reject the plan ?
> 
> Your welcome
Click to expand...


No. Self determination is not something you sign up for in some stupid scheme.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link for what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens,
Click to expand...


But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.

Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No

Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No

If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Another big fat Israeli lie.
> *
> The partition plan was irrelevant to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an Israeli lie. It's a *WORLDWIDE FACT*
> 
> Would the plan have given them self determination? Did they reject the plan ?
> 
> Your welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Self determination is not something you sign up for in some stupid scheme.
Click to expand...

Well, Tinmore, did the Palestinians accept or reject the plan? That was the question you completely ignored.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Another big fat Israeli lie.
> *
> The partition plan was irrelevant to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an Israeli lie. It's a *WORLDWIDE FACT*
> 
> Would the plan have given them self determination? Did they reject the plan ?
> 
> Your welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Self determination is not something you sign up for in some stupid scheme.
Click to expand...


They rejected the partition plan. Had they accepted it, they would have had self determination


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.
> 
> Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No
> 
> Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No
> 
> If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?



The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire helped the British defeat the Ottomans so that they would all have freedom, not so that the Arabs of Palestine would be the victims of a colonialist project.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.
> 
> Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No
> 
> Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No
> 
> If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire helped the British defeat the Ottomans so that they would all have freedom, not so that the Arabs of Palestine would be the victims of a colonialist project.
Click to expand...


What Arabs??  The ottomans were Turks, not Arabs


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Another misinterpretation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It wasn't their country.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, so Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians. It belonged to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals, LOL. No one said it belong to the Zionists from Europe, you're the one that brought that up
> 
> IT didn;t belong to the Palestinians. THEY HAD NO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND
Click to expand...


They resided on that land for a millennium and OCCUPIED by various invaders like they are today.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.
> 
> Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No
> 
> Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No
> 
> If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire helped the British defeat the Ottomans *so that they would all have freedom, not so that the Arabs of Palestine would be the victims of a colonialist project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Arabs??  The ottomans were Turks, not Arabs
Click to expand...


Who said the Ottomans were Arabs?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link for what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.
> 
> Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No
> 
> Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No
> 
> If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?
Click to expand...


they were occupied.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was NOT owned by its citizens,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.
> 
> Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No
> 
> Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No
> 
> If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were occupied.
Click to expand...


Oh, so not the British and Ottomans occupied 'Palestine' lol!

What you and Tinmore come up with sometimes is unbelievable


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an Israeli lie. It's a *WORLDWIDE FACT*
> 
> Would the plan have given them self determination? Did they reject the plan ?
> 
> Your welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Self determination is not something you sign up for in some stupid scheme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Tinmore, did the Palestinians accept or reject the plan? That was the question you completely ignored.
Click to expand...


It is not that I ignored it, it is completely irrelevant.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're the one who made the claim without providing the link.
> 
> Did the Palestinians capture Palestine from the Ottomans? No
> 
> Were the Palestinians making any decisions about Mandatory Palestine? No
> 
> If they owned Palestine, why did they let the British control all their decisions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so not the British and Ottomans occupied 'Palestine' lol!
> 
> What you and Tinmore come up with sometimes is unbelievable
Click to expand...


*United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leadersactuated by political motives and engaging in political threatsdisturbed and annoyed me."[*


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Self determination is not something you sign up for in some stupid scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore, did the Palestinians accept or reject the plan? That was the question you completely ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not that I ignored it, it is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Why is it that you call things that are relevant, irrelevant... It's as if you are afraid of the truth

They rejected the plan. Had they accepted the plan, they would have had self determination

I hope you're not saying they had self determination in 1948....


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were occupied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so not the British and Ottomans occupied 'Palestine' lol!
> 
> What you and Tinmore come up with sometimes is unbelievable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leadersactuated by political motives and engaging in political threatsdisturbed and annoyed me."[*
Click to expand...


So when the Zionists were pressuring FDR to stop Hitler, FDR took his sweet time, but Truman was simply trembling in his boots.
How stupid do you think people are?
Jewish pressure meant NOTHING to the State Department back then.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were occupied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so not the British and Ottomans occupied 'Palestine' lol!
> 
> What you and Tinmore come up with sometimes is unbelievable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leadersactuated by political motives and engaging in political threatsdisturbed and annoyed me."[*
Click to expand...


huh???


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so not the British and Ottomans occupied 'Palestine' lol!
> 
> What you and Tinmore come up with sometimes is unbelievable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leadersactuated by political motives and engaging in political threatsdisturbed and annoyed me."[*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when the Zionists were pressuring FDR to stop Hitler, FDR took his sweet time, but Truman was simply trembling in his boots.
> How stupid do you think people are?
> Jewish pressure meant NOTHING to the State Department back then.
Click to expand...


his words speak volumes...you are a soldier of Zionists bull.


----------



## Indeependent

Zionists must leave land; one of them passed gas!


----------



## Indeependent

Zionist burped...must leave land.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so not the British and Ottomans occupied 'Palestine' lol!
> 
> What you and Tinmore come up with sometimes is unbelievable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leadersactuated by political motives and engaging in political threatsdisturbed and annoyed me."[*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> huh???
Click to expand...


Duh???


----------



## Indeependent

Zionist urinated...Zionists must leave land NOW!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore, did the Palestinians accept or reject the plan? That was the question you completely ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I ignored it, it is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you call things that are relevant, irrelevant... It's as if you are afraid of the truth
> 
> They rejected the plan. Had they accepted the plan, they would have had self determination
> 
> I hope you're not saying they had self determination in 1948....
Click to expand...


The Palestinians had the* right *to self determination since the creation of Palestine.

Those rights have always been illegally denied to them by people with guns.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I ignored it, it is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you call things that are relevant, irrelevant... It's as if you are afraid of the truth
> 
> They rejected the plan. Had they accepted the plan, they would have had self determination
> 
> I hope you're not saying they had self determination in 1948....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians had the* right *to self determination since the creation of Palestine.
> 
> Those rights have always been illegally denied to them by people with guns.
Click to expand...


Arafat and his minions didn't have guns?!


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you call things that are relevant, irrelevant... It's as if you are afraid of the truth
> 
> They rejected the plan. Had they accepted the plan, they would have had self determination
> 
> I hope you're not saying they had self determination in 1948....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians had the* right *to self determination since the creation of Palestine.
> 
> Those rights have always been illegally denied to them by people with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arafat and his minions didn't have guns?!
Click to expand...



*India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".[46] Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehrus sister, the Indian ambassador to the U.N, occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Yishuv. But another Indian delegate said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Moslem minority, although they know that the Jews has a case*


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.

For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.

After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.

None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.  

The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



*Sovereignty is only given by the people! You should know that Rocco.*


----------



## Victory67

I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.



Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.


----------



## pbel

Victory67 said:


> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.




*MONEY!!!!!!!!*
Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan May or may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[49]


----------



## Victory67

Sally said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
Click to expand...


Maybe the Israelis should lead by example.

You know, like a "light unto the Nations".


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty is only given by the people! You should know that Rocco.*
Click to expand...


EVERYTHING Rocco said in that post is 100% true. 

Now, do you STILL think that the Ottomans and British were 'Occupying' Palestine ?


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
Click to expand...


Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the Israelis should lead by example.
> 
> You know, like a "light unto the Nations".
Click to expand...


Maybe the Muslims should stop murdering people in the name of their religion.  Remember that Islam is supposed to be a Religion of Peace.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.



Like the US they have militaries to defend their borders.


----------



## Victory67

Sally said:


> Maybe the Muslims should stop murdering people in the name of their religion.  Remember that Islam is supposed to be a Religion of Peace.



And the Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not steal".

But we all know how little the Israelis respect that one.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty is only given by the people! You should know that Rocco.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVERYTHING Rocco said in that post is 100% true.
> 
> Now, do you STILL think that the Ottomans and British were 'Occupying' Palestine ?
Click to expand...


Of course!


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?
Click to expand...

Comparison, Chauncy. You got somethin' agin that?


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for a logical reason why the rest of the Ottoman Empire, German Empire, and Austro-Hungarian Empire deserved freedom and self-determination but Palestine didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Pbel, those who know you from before don't think you are actually worried about the Arabs.  You never had any comments to say when you could have discussed the Middle East in general.  The only reason you are piping up here is because the Jews are involved.  I don't know who you think you are fooling except others with the same mind set as  you have.


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparison, Chauncy. You got somethin' agin that?
Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it, how pro-Palestinian folk will dodge and deflect using case-comparisons, whenever you back 'em into a corner about the misdeeds of their Pal friends, but God forbid anybody but THEY resort to such tactics...


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparison, Chauncy. You got somethin' agin that?
Click to expand...


Oh you mean china invading Tibet like Israel and her bought with money and threats invading Palestine?

Not analogous.


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Muslims should stop murdering people in the name of their religion.  Remember that Islam is supposed to be a Religion of Peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not steal".
> 
> But we all know how little the Israelis respect that one.
Click to expand...


Why, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, how do you think the Muslims got control of the Middle East when they left the Saudi Arabian Peninsula?  Do you think they actually paid for the land in the Middle East?


----------



## Victory67

Sally said:


> Why, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, how do you think the Muslims got control of the Middle East when they left the Saudi Arabian Peninsula?  Do you think they actually paid for the land in the Middle East?



How do you think the Hebrews gained control of the western section of the Levant?

by saying "please"?


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am waiting for the Chinese to leave Tibet so that the Tibetans can run their own country again.  No doubt the Cypriots are waiting for the Turks to leave the part of Cyrus that they now occupy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Pbel, those who know you from before don't think you are actually worried about the Arabs.  You never had any comments to say when you could have discussed the Middle East in general.  The only reason you are piping up here is because the Jews are involved.  I don't know who you think you are fooling except others with the same mind set as  you have.
Click to expand...


Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.


----------



## Indeependent

Start war with Jew.
Lose war.
Jew stole from you.
Huh?

You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
That Jew is gone.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

Well this is not always true.



pbel said:


> *Sovereignty is only given by the people! You should know that Rocco.*


*(COMMENT)*

There are different kinds of Sovereignty and differing views.



			
				Sovereignty and independence said:
			
		

> State sovereignty is sometimes viewed synonymously with independence, however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sovereignty is the supreme authority, especially over a state; differing form independence or the right to self-government without interference from outside.

You are confusing the two terms:  Sovereignty and Independence.  Sovereignty can be acquired through peaceful means as well as force; or treaty.  But independence is declared by the constituents.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airhead#1 chimes in...what has Tibet got to do with Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Pbel, those who know you from before don't think you are actually worried about the Arabs.  You never had any comments to say when you could have discussed the Middle East in general.  The only reason you are piping up here is because the Jews are involved.  I don't know who you think you are fooling except others with the same mind set as  you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.
Click to expand...


Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it.  If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers  by other Arabs.  This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Well this is not always true.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty is only given by the people! You should know that Rocco.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are different kinds of Sovereignty and differing views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereignty and independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State sovereignty is sometimes viewed synonymously with independence, however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sovereignty is the supreme authority, especially over a state; differing form independence or the right to self-government without interference from outside.
> 
> You are confusing the two terms:  Sovereignty and Independence.  Sovereignty can be acquired through peaceful means as well as force; or treaty.  But independence is declared by the constituents.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Oh, I see...so if force is used then the ruled have the right to revolt...That's what we did in America, and that's what the Palestinians are doing today...

Sovereignty by force is Fascism.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Well this is not always true.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty is only given by the people! You should know that Rocco.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are different kinds of Sovereignty and differing views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereignty and independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State sovereignty is sometimes viewed synonymously with independence, however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sovereignty is the supreme authority, especially over a state; differing form independence or the right to self-government without interference from outside.
> 
> You are confusing the two terms:  Sovereignty and Independence.  Sovereignty can be acquired through peaceful means as well as force; or treaty.  But independence is declared by the constituents.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see...so if force is used then the ruled have the right to revolt...That's what we did in America, and that's what the Palestinians are doing today...
> 
> Sovereignty by force is Fascism.
Click to expand...


Pbel, those who fought in the American Revolution didn't target civilians as the Palestinians do.


----------



## Victory67

Indeependent said:


> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone.



Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.

And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.
> 
> And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?
Click to expand...


But, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, Arabs also have stolen money in the U.S. and elsewhere; and if they could have gotten away with it, they would have stolen just as much as Bernie Madoff.  By the way, off the top of your head, how much money do you think Arafat stole from his people?  His wife must have laughed all the way to the bank.


----------



## Hossfly

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.
> 
> And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?
Click to expand...

Bernie didn't get away withit. Unlike Herr und Frau Arafart.


----------



## Hossfly

Sally said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.
> 
> And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, Arabs also have stolen money in the U.S. and elsewhere; and if they could have gotten away with it, they would have stolen just as much as Bernie Madoff.  By the way, off the top of your head, how much money do you think Arafat stole from his people?  His wife must have laughed all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

You beat me to the punch.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.
> 
> And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?
Click to expand...


What does Berni Madoff have to do with anything ?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.
> 
> And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Berni Madoff have to do with anything ?
Click to expand...


He said Jews don't steal.

I proved him wrong.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Pbel, those who know you from before don't think you are actually worried about the Arabs.  You never had any comments to say when you could have discussed the Middle East in general.  The only reason you are piping up here is because the Jews are involved.  I don't know who you think you are fooling except others with the same mind set as  you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it.  If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers  by other Arabs.  This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.
Click to expand...



Look, Sally, if America was not targeted by Terrorism because we supply Israel the bombs they drop on Muslims, I would care a lot less. My concern is Terrorism killing Americans.

This conflict is killing Americans, and clearly Jews invading an area for a safe haven is an injustice because the land  belonged to someone else.

America should be neutral but can't because AIPAC the American/Israeli lobby has bought off the entire US Congress with money contributions. Our Democracy has turned into an Oligarchy...rule by the one percent.

If you're an American, you should care about America like me.


----------



## Victory67

Could someone tell me what the topic of this thread is?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> Well this is not always true.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are different kinds of Sovereignty and differing views.
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereignty is the supreme authority, especially over a state; differing form independence or the right to self-government without interference from outside.
> 
> You are confusing the two terms:  Sovereignty and Independence.  Sovereignty can be acquired through peaceful means as well as force; or treaty.  But independence is declared by the constituents.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see...so if force is used then the ruled have the right to revolt...That's what we did in America, and that's what the Palestinians are doing today...
> 
> Sovereignty by force is Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, those who fought in the American Revolution didn't target civilians as the Palestinians do.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the English Loyalists (Tories) who ran for their lives to Canada! Give us more Air!


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it.  If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers  by other Arabs.  This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Sally, if America was not targeted by Terrorism because we supply Israel the bombs they drop on Muslims, I would care a lot less. My concern is Terrorism killing Americans.
> 
> This conflict is killing Americans, and clearly Jews invading an area for a safe haven is an injustice because the land  belonged to someone else.
> 
> America should be neutral but can't because AIPAC the American/Israeli lobby has bought off the entire US Congress with money contributions. Our Democracy has turned into an Oligarchy...rule by the one percent.
> 
> If you're an American, you should care about America like me.
Click to expand...


Stop trying to blame everything on Israel.  There is terrorism all over the world, and it has nothing to do with Israel or the Jews.  Pbel, you really are getting tiresome with your AIPAC shtick.  You have been going on years and years with it as if that was the only lobby in America.  You don't think the Saudis also have a lobby here in America?  Why don't you worry more about what many Muslims say -- that they want a worldwide Caliphate.  I realize you would make a fine Dhimmi, but I don't think most of us want that position.


----------



## pbel

Victory67 said:


> Could someone tell me what the topic of this thread is?



*People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.*


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.
> 
> The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.
> 
> These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.
> 
> Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
Click to expand...


You know what cracks me up about how blind you "Palestinian" sympathizers are.
The Jews left Europe with NOTHING, leaving behind dead relatives.
And yet they were civilized enough, with world wide Jewish support, to handle what you guys thought would be an overwhelming attack.

And what did your Jordanians have?
Nothing...including no support from their "Brothers".
Such "Brothers" I wouldn't wish on anyone.


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.
> 
> The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.
> 
> These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.
> 
> Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what cracks me up about how blind you "Palestinian" sympathizers are.
> The Jews left Europe with NOTHING, leaving behind dead relatives.
> And yet they were civilized enough, with world wide Jewish support, to handle what you guys thought would be an overwhelming attack.
> 
> And what did your Jordanians have?
> Nothing...including no support from their "Brothers".
> Such "Brothers" I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Click to expand...


The issue is not about Jews in the Holocaust. What Human Being does not cry when viewing those horrible scenes? But what did the Palestinians have to do with German and yes European hate for Jews?

Nothing.


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.
> 
> The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.
> 
> These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.
> 
> Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what cracks me up about how blind you "Palestinian" sympathizers are.
> The Jews left Europe with NOTHING, leaving behind dead relatives.
> And yet they were civilized enough, with world wide Jewish support, to handle what you guys thought would be an overwhelming attack.
> 
> And what did your Jordanians have?
> Nothing...including no support from their "Brothers".
> Such "Brothers" I wouldn't wish on anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is not about Jews in the Holocaust. What Human Being does not cry when viewing those horrible scenes? But what did the Palestinians have to do with German and yes European hate for Jews?
> 
> Nothing.
Click to expand...


You must be seeing something I had no intention to state.
There's not a non-WBJ Arab in the world actually willing to do ANYTHING for them.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it.  If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers  by other Arabs.  This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Sally, if America was not targeted by Terrorism because we supply Israel the bombs they drop on Muslims, I would care a lot less. My concern is Terrorism killing Americans.
> 
> This conflict is killing Americans, and clearly Jews invading an area for a safe haven is an injustice because the land  belonged to someone else.
> 
> America should be neutral but can't because AIPAC the American/Israeli lobby has bought off the entire US Congress with money contributions. Our Democracy has turned into an Oligarchy...rule by the one percent.
> 
> If you're an American, you should care about America like me.
Click to expand...


So you want America to succumb to the demands of the Muslims to cut off Israel ??

LOL ! America doesn't take demands


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.
> 
> The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.
> 
> These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.
> 
> Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
Click to expand...


So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.

Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.
> 
> And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars?  $40 billion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Berni Madoff have to do with anything ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said Jews don't steal.
> 
> I proved him wrong.
Click to expand...


Liar ! Where did he say that Jews don't steal??? What post


----------



## Indeependent

A Zionist yawned...All Zionists must leave!


----------



## MHunterB

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.
> 
> Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.
> 
> Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some *fantasy of the 'noble savage' *.......
> 
> The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
Click to expand...


Actually, PB - you are the illiterate one, since you appear to be completely unaware of the entire 'noble savage' meme .....there was a reason for my putting ' around the term.   I was not insinuating that Pals are ignorant :  I was accusing the Arabists of falling prey to some 18th C 'enlightenment' sterotypes and romanticizing the Palestinians......

Next time I want to refer to terms used by the 18th C philosophes,  I will be sure and spell everything out so an ignoramus like yourself might be able to realize to what I've referred.  I note with amusement that a couple of other posters are so unfamiliar with the term that they bought your ignorant and false accusations.......


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _et al,_
> 
> Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty.  It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
> 
> For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty _(independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land)_.  It was not an occupation.
> 
> After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation.  Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
> 
> None of this changed the ownership of the land.  P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation _(make laws)_ and of administration _(authority over)_ the territory.
> 
> The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them.  The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League _(and even that is questionable)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.
> 
> The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.
> 
> These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.
> 
> Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.
> 
> Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims
Click to expand...


My claims are right there. What did he "dismantle?"


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.
> 
> The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.
> 
> These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.
> 
> Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.
> 
> Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.
> 
> Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.
> 
> Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claims are right there. What did he "dismantle?"
Click to expand...


Everything you said


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.
> 
> Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My claims are right there. What did he "dismantle?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you said
Click to expand...


How so?

You sound like a 16 year old girl when asked what she did not like about her ex boyfriend.

Well, everything.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My claims are right there. What did he "dismantle?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> You sound like a 16 year old girl when asked what she did not like about her ex boyfriend.
> 
> Well, everything.
Click to expand...


And you look like a 9 year old with your constant denial even when its obvious you're wrong


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> You sound like a 16 year old girl when asked what she did not like about her ex boyfriend.
> 
> Well, everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you look like a 9 year old with your constant denial even when its obvious you're wrong
Click to expand...


You have never been able to show me where I was wrong.

You have to be more specific than "everything." Everything means nothing.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> You sound like a 16 year old girl when asked what she did not like about her ex boyfriend.
> 
> Well, everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you look like a 9 year old with your constant denial even when its obvious you're wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never been able to show me where I was wrong.
> 
> You have to be more specific than "everything." Everything means nothing.
Click to expand...


Sure I have. See post 989


----------



## toastman

Speaking of which, I need to update that list. I need to add 'That the British and Ottomans occupied Palestine'


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you look like a 9 year old with your constant denial even when its obvious you're wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been able to show me where I was wrong.
> 
> You have to be more specific than "everything." Everything means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I have. See post 989
Click to expand...


OK, post 989



> - Israel having no borders
> - Resolution 181 being irrelevant for the declaration of Independence for both Israel and 'Palestine'
> - That there never was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine
> - That Israel has no land
> - That no one won the 1948 Arab - Israeli war
> - All of Israel being occupied
> - That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948
> - That Palestine was a country for the Palestinians established in 1924



Where was any of this proven wrong?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Liar ! Where did he say that Jews don't steal??? What post



Right here.  Do your homework before you call someone else a liar.



Indeependent said:


> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> *You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone*.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar ! Where did he say that Jews don't steal??? What post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here.  Do your homework before you call someone else a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> *You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Get used to it defeat67, the pre-Babylonian Exile Jew is back.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never been able to show me where I was wrong.
> 
> You have to be more specific than "everything." Everything means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I have. See post 989
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, post 989
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Israel having no borders
> - Resolution 181 being irrelevant for the declaration of Independence for both Israel and 'Palestine'
> - That there never was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine
> - That Israel has no land
> - That no one won the 1948 Arab - Israeli war
> - All of Israel being occupied
> - That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948
> - That Palestine was a country for the Palestinians established in 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where was any of this proven wrong?
Click to expand...


All of these are claims you made that have been proven wrong since I've been posting here, mostly by Rocco. 
What do you mean where?


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar ! Where did he say that Jews don't steal??? What post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here.  Do your homework before you call someone else a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start war with Jew.
> Lose war.
> Jew stole from you.
> Huh?
> 
> *You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
> That Jew is gone*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Uhhh, where does it say Jews don't steal ??


----------



## Indeependent

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I have. See post 989
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, post 989
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Israel having no borders
> - Resolution 181 being irrelevant for the declaration of Independence for both Israel and 'Palestine'
> - That there never was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine
> - That Israel has no land
> - That no one won the 1948 Arab - Israeli war
> - All of Israel being occupied
> - That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948
> - That Palestine was a country for the Palestinians established in 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where was any of this proven wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of these are claims you made that have been proven wrong since I've been posting here, mostly by Rocco.
> What do you mean where?
Click to expand...



When Rocco supports Tinhead, Tinhead clicks Thanks.
When Rocco shoots down Tinhead, Tinhead waits a few pages and then repeats the same lies.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Uhhh, where does it say Jews don't steal ??



He says that the Jew who takes shit, is gone.

What do you think that means?

Come on, you're not an idiot.  Are you?


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, where does it say Jews don't steal ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says that the Jew who takes shit, is gone.
> 
> What do you think that means?
> 
> Come on, you're not an idiot.  Are you?
Click to expand...


You brought up Bernie Madoff . I asked you what that has to do with anything. You said that Indy said Jews don't steal. I havent seen that post yet


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I have. See post 989
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, post 989
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Israel having no borders
> - Resolution 181 being irrelevant for the declaration of Independence for both Israel and 'Palestine'
> - That there never was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine
> - That Israel has no land
> - That no one won the 1948 Arab - Israeli war
> - All of Israel being occupied
> - That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948
> - That Palestine was a country for the Palestinians established in 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where was any of this proven wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of these are claims you made that have been proven wrong since I've been posting here, mostly by Rocco.
> What do you mean where?
Click to expand...


Nice duck.

Give me an example.


----------



## toastman

What duck? You asked a stupid question. Each and every one of those claims you made was proven wrong. 
The issue is that you refuse to accept when you are wrong. 

Choose one


----------



## toastman

I need to update that list BTW. I need to add 'The British and Ottomans were occupying Palestine' 

LOL, that's my favorite one !!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> What duck? You asked a stupid question. Each and every one of those claims you made was proven wrong.
> The issue is that you refuse to accept when you are wrong.
> 
> Choose one



Do you want me to chose one and prove I am right or do you want to chose one and prove I am wrong?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What duck? You asked a stupid question. Each and every one of those claims you made was proven wrong.
> The issue is that you refuse to accept when you are wrong.
> 
> Choose one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to chose one and prove I am right or do you want to chose one and prove I am wrong?
Click to expand...


Youve already been proven wrong on all of them, but you refuse to acknowledge that even though the evidence is in front of you.  Go ahead and choose


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What duck? You asked a stupid question. Each and every one of those claims you made was proven wrong.
> The issue is that you refuse to accept when you are wrong.
> 
> Choose one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to chose one and prove I am right or do you want to chose one and prove I am wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youve already been proven wrong on all of them, but you refuse to acknowledge that even though the evidence is in front of you.  Go ahead and choose
Click to expand...


In most of these I would have to prove a negative so I will pick an easy one.



> - That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948





> First Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine - 1948 *
> By virtue of the natural and historical right of the Palestinian Arab people to
> freedom and independence, which sacred right was sacrificed for with blood,
> defended by noble martyrs, preserved against encroachment by Zionist and colonial
> powers, we, members of the Palestine National Council, which is meeting in Ghazzat
> Hashim I on this twenty-eighth of Dhu'l-Qa'da 1367 A.H., corresponding to the first
> of October 1948 A.D., hereby declare the full and complete independence of all
> Palestine, which is bordered by Syria and Lebanon to the north, Syria and the East
> Bank of Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and Egypt to the
> south. [It will be] a free, democratic, and sovereign state in which all citizens will
> exercise their freedom and rights, and it will join its sister Arab states in building
> the Arab heritage and serving human civilization. We shall be guided by the values
> of our nation and its glorious history, and are determined to preserve and defend our
> independence.
> Almighty God has spoken the truth.
> Signed
> [Signatures of 65 Palestinian representatives]
> 
> Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 4 (1987-88), 294-96.





> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948


----------



## Kondor3

Too bad the Arabs didn't issue this on May 14, 1948 (_the day the Jews declared their Independence and established their claim_), eh?

Rather like coming to the Oklahoma Land Rush four months after the starting-gun had fired...












Like most Arab-Palestinian gestures, a Day Late and a Shekel Short.

Too bad they didn't have their s--t together in time to do 'em any good, eh?

You snooze, you lose.

True story.

========================================




P F Tinmore said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Too bad the Arabs didn't issue this on May 14, 1948 (_the day the Jews declared their Independence and established their claim_), eh?
> 
> Rather like coming to the Oklahoma Land Rush four months after the starting-gun had fired...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most Arab-Palestinian gestures, a Day Late and a Shekel Short.
> 
> Too bad they didn't have their s--t together in time to do 'em any good, eh?
> 
> You snooze, you lose.
> 
> True story.
> 
> ========================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to chose one and prove I am right or do you want to chose one and prove I am wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youve already been proven wrong on all of them, but you refuse to acknowledge that even though the evidence is in front of you.  Go ahead and choose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of these I would have to prove a negative so I will pick an easy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine - 1948 *
> By virtue of the natural and historical right of the Palestinian Arab people to
> freedom and independence, which sacred right was sacrificed for with blood,
> defended by noble martyrs, preserved against encroachment by Zionist and colonial
> powers, we, members of the Palestine National Council, which is meeting in Ghazzat
> Hashim I on this twenty-eighth of Dhu'l-Qa'da 1367 A.H., corresponding to the first
> of October 1948 A.D., hereby declare the full and complete independence of all
> Palestine, which is bordered by Syria and Lebanon to the north, Syria and the East
> Bank of Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and Egypt to the
> south. [It will be] a free, democratic, and sovereign state in which all citizens will
> exercise their freedom and rights, and it will join its sister Arab states in building
> the Arab heritage and serving human civilization. We shall be guided by the values
> of our nation and its glorious history, and are determined to preserve and defend our
> independence.
> Almighty God has spoken the truth.
> Signed
> [Signatures of 65 Palestinian representatives]
> 
> Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 4 (1987-88), 294-96.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The Palestinians declared independence in 1988. That is the official one. 

https://www.google.ca/#q=palestinian+declaration+of+independence

EVERY site you will find when you type in Palestinian DOI is from the 1988 one. 

Let me ask you, if they declared independence in 1948, on what land did they do it on?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youve already been proven wrong on all of them, but you refuse to acknowledge that even though the evidence is in front of you.  Go ahead and choose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most of these I would have to prove a negative so I will pick an easy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988. That is the official one.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/#q=palestinian+declaration+of+independence
> 
> EVERY site you will find when you type in Palestinian DOI is from the 1988 one.
> 
> Let me ask you, if they declared independence in 1948, on what land did they do it on?
Click to expand...




> hereby declare the full and complete independence of all
> Palestine, which is bordered by Syria and Lebanon to the north, Syria and the East
> Bank of Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and Egypt to the
> south.



Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "...The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue."


The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).

Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.

Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.

Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.

Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.

The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most of these I would have to prove a negative so I will pick an easy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988. That is the official one.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/#q=palestinian+declaration+of+independence
> 
> EVERY site you will find when you type in Palestinian DOI is from the 1988 one.
> 
> Let me ask you, if they declared independence in 1948, on what land did they do it on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hereby declare the full and complete independence of all
> Palestine, which is bordered by Syria and Lebanon to the north, Syria and the East
> Bank of Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and Egypt to the
> south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?
Click to expand...


Nice duck.

The Palestinians attempted to declare independence on territory ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT. The proof is in the dates

A 5 years old could understand that.


----------



## Indeependent

"Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"

Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?


----------



## toastman

Indeependent said:


> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?




Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
Click to expand...


Palestine had borders from 1922 to 1947.

And the USA recognized the West Bank as Arab Palestine, from 1949 to 1967.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine had borders from 1922 to 1947.
> 
> And the USA recognized the West Bank as Arab Palestine, from 1949 to 1967.
Click to expand...


What about in 1948 ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue."
> 
> 
> 
> The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).
> 
> Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.
> 
> Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.
> 
> The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.
Click to expand...




> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, *de facto,* the lands of the new State of Israel


Indeed.

The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*

There was no clash.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine had borders from 1922 to 1947.
> 
> And the USA recognized the West Bank as Arab Palestine, from 1949 to 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about in 1948 ?
Click to expand...


What about it?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue."
> 
> 
> 
> The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).
> 
> Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.
> 
> Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.
> 
> The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, *de facto,* the lands of the new State of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
Click to expand...


They declared independence on territory already declared independent by Israel

Remember this?

*After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
Click to expand...


Another Israeli lie. Look up international boundaries and find them on this map of Palestine.


----------



## toastman

How many times does this need to be repeated to you ?


----------



## toastman

It even says PROPOSED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE PALESTINE QUESTION


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue."
> 
> 
> 
> The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).
> 
> Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.
> 
> Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.
> 
> The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, *de facto,* the lands of the new State of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians *HAD* no borders.

The sovereign States which surrounded them had 'borders'.

Politically speaking, south of the border of Lebanon, southwest of the border of Syria, West of the border of Transjordan, north-northeast of the border of Egypt, and to the east of the waters of the Mediterranean, lay an unincorporated, unchartered region long identified by the nominal label 'Palestine'. Politically speaking, this was a vacuum... a non-entity... having no existence nor rights attributable to it by any practical gauge.

One of the groups of residents (the Jews of Old Palestine) bundled-together the lands they controlled and declared themselves to be a sovereign State, independent of their neighbors, in much the same fashion as a gaggle of residents of an area of unincorporated land, will coalesce and declare themselves a village or town or township, using some or all of the unincorporated lands that they control.

Happens all the time.

There is no substitute for preparedness.

And the sad and glaringly obvious truth of the matter is that the Palestinians simply did not have their act together, and paid the forfeit.


----------



## toastman

I feel like I'm debating with a little kid. This is ridiculous. Everything has to be explained to Tinmore like 10 times


----------



## Victory67

Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948.  Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).
> 
> Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.
> 
> Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.
> 
> The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, *de facto,* the lands of the new State of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They declared independence on territory already declared independent by Israel
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*
Click to expand...




> Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory,



2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is *not* to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They declared independence on territory already declared independent by Israel
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is *not* to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
Click to expand...


YOu're bringing up armistice cease fire lines, which are not official borders, yes. That has nothing to do with that Im talking about. 

Again:

*After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Victory67 said:


> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948.  Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.



Another Israeli lie.



> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949



Notice that this was the year *after* the end of the mandate.


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, you cant even provide a map entitled PALESTINE that shows it with international borders

The only thing you have is a PROPOSED PARTITION PLAN map with proposed borders


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948. Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.


Depends upon one's point of view.

A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Lebanon existed on May 15, 1948.

A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Syria existed on May 15, 1948.

A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Transjordan existed on May 15, 1948.

A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Egypt existed on May 15, 1948.

No such widely internationally and formally recognized, autonmous and sovereign Palestine existed on May 15, 1948.

What existed in Old Palestine at the expiration of the British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.

The Mediterranean Sea and the borders of those preexisting sovereign states merely acted as the boundary lines for the maximum extent of the political vacuum.

The Jews of Old Palestine jumped-in quickly and claimed some of the land associated with that political vacuum as the basis for their own independent State.

Subsequent events made their claim a Reality.

Anyone not recognizing that Reality does, indeed, have recourse.

They may appeal the decision of history by force of arms.


----------



## Indeependent

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They declared independence on territory already declared independent by Israel
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is *not* to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu're bringing up armistice cease fire lines, which are not official borders, yes. That has nothing to do with that Im talking about.
> 
> Again:
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*
Click to expand...


First of all, you ARE dealing with a brain that can't the fact that things change in life.

Second of all, if it wasn't for the few of us responding to these childish posters, nobody would be paying attention at all.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> "..._Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine_..."


That's the gist of it.

Sometimes, secession doesn't work out.

Somtimes it does, as it the case with Israel, in relation to Old Palestine.

And, given that they were seceding from a political vacuum, nobody who counted cared very much.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Tinmore, you cant even provide a map entitled PALESTINE that shows it with international borders
> 
> The only thing you have is a PROPOSED PARTITION PLAN map with proposed borders



The Zionists accepted the borders for The State of Israel.  They considered the borders to be legit.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..."



A map of an administrative region which dissolved upon the expiration of the Mandate.

A map showing the borders of autonomous and sovereign states, surrounding what was to become a political vacuum upon the expiration of the Mandate; a vacuum from which the Jews of Old Palestine detached themselves and broke away, on that very same day.

An intelligent and forward-thinking act which the Palestinians have been kicking themselves about for 66 years, for not doing the same thing, the same day.

You snooze, you lose.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948. Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon one's point of view.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Lebanon existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Syria existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Transjordan existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Egypt existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> No such widely internationally and formally recognized, autonmous and sovereign Palestine existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> What existed in Old Palestine at the expiration of the British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> The Mediterranean Sea and the borders of those preexisting sovereign states merely acted as the boundary lines for the maximum extent of the political vacuum.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine jumped-in quickly and claimed some of the land associated with that political vacuum as the basis for their own independent State.
> 
> Subsequent events made their claim a Reality.
> 
> Anyone not recognizing that Reality does, indeed, have recourse.
> 
> They may appeal the decision of history by force of arms.
Click to expand...




> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.
> 
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel





> British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.



A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.

Interesting legal concept.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, you cant even provide a map entitled PALESTINE that shows it with international borders
> 
> The only thing you have is a PROPOSED PARTITION PLAN map with proposed borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists accepted the borders for The State of Israel.  They considered the borders to be legit.
Click to expand...

They considered the borders of the sovereign states surrounding them to be legit, and they left something of Old Palestine for the Arabs as well, as much in keeping with the 1947 Partition proposal as was practicable after some months of fighting had already altered the internal boundaries between population groups.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948. Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon one's point of view.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Lebanon existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Syria existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Transjordan existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Egypt existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> No such widely internationally and formally recognized, autonmous and sovereign Palestine existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> What existed in Old Palestine at the expiration of the British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> The Mediterranean Sea and the borders of those preexisting sovereign states merely acted as the boundary lines for the maximum extent of the political vacuum.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine jumped-in quickly and claimed some of the land associated with that political vacuum as the basis for their own independent State.
> 
> Subsequent events made their claim a Reality.
> 
> Anyone not recognizing that Reality does, indeed, have recourse.
> 
> They may appeal the decision of history by force of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.
> 
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.
> 
> Interesting legal concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, isn't it?

Everyone's citizenship evaporated at Midnight on Expiration Day.

There was no polity thereafter within that political vacuum to which citizenship could be attributed.

Oh, there were plenty of RESIDENTS of the region.

But no CITIZENS.

There was no polity to be citizens OF.

As to borders, none existed, at Midnight on Expiration Day.

At least not from the Vacuum side (Old Palestine).

Merely the legitimate borders of sovereign states OUTSIDE the vacuum.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue."
> 
> 
> 
> The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).
> 
> Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.
> 
> Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.
> 
> The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, *de facto,* the lands of the new State of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, why don't you write a letter to the PA and have them send you the current status and end all this folderol.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, you cant even provide a map entitled PALESTINE that shows it with international borders
> 
> The only thing you have is a PROPOSED PARTITION PLAN map with proposed borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists accepted the borders for The State of Israel.  They considered the borders to be legit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They considered the borders of the sovereign states surrounding them to be legit, and they left something of Old Palestine for the Arabs as well, as much in keeping with the 1947 Partition proposal as was practicable after some months of fighting had already altered the internal boundaries between population groups.
Click to expand...


Do you have some links for all that?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists accepted the borders for The State of Israel.  They considered the borders to be legit.
> 
> 
> 
> They considered the borders of the sovereign states surrounding them to be legit, and they left something of Old Palestine for the Arabs as well, as much in keeping with the 1947 Partition proposal as was practicable after some months of fighting had already altered the internal boundaries between population groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some links for all that?
Click to expand...

Sure.

Any credible hybrid political and military narrative of the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1947-1949 timeframe and the outcome.

One need look no further than the Real World outcome to infer what I said, above, and to recognize it as operative accuracy and truth.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They considered the borders of the sovereign states surrounding them to be legit, and they left something of Old Palestine for the Arabs as well, as much in keeping with the 1947 Partition proposal as was practicable after some months of fighting had already altered the internal boundaries between population groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some links for all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Any credible hybrid political and military narrative of the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1947-1949 timeframe and the outcome.
> 
> One need look no further than the Real World outcome to infer what I said, above, and to recognize it as operative accuracy and truth.
Click to expand...


I will take actual documents over say so.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to chose one and prove I am right or do you want to chose one and prove I am wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youve already been proven wrong on all of them, but you refuse to acknowledge that even though the evidence is in front of you.  Go ahead and choose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of these I would have to prove a negative so I will pick an easy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine - 1948 *
> By virtue of the natural and historical right of the Palestinian Arab people to
> freedom and independence, which sacred right was sacrificed for with blood,
> defended by noble martyrs, preserved against encroachment by Zionist and colonial
> powers, we, members of the Palestine National Council, which is meeting in Ghazzat
> Hashim I on this twenty-eighth of Dhu'l-Qa'da 1367 A.H., corresponding to the first
> of October 1948 A.D., hereby declare the full and complete independence of all
> Palestine, which is bordered by Syria and Lebanon to the north, Syria and the East
> Bank of Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and Egypt to the
> south. [It will be] a free, democratic, and sovereign state in which all citizens will
> exercise their freedom and rights, and it will join its sister Arab states in building
> the Arab heritage and serving human civilization. We shall be guided by the values
> of our nation and its glorious history, and are determined to preserve and defend our
> independence.
> Almighty God has spoken the truth.
> Signed
> [Signatures of 65 Palestinian representatives]
> 
> Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 4 (1987-88), 294-96.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> 
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Palestine tries to declare a state on land under Jordanian control during a truce and reaction to the jurisdiction ordinance.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the Arabs didn't issue this on May 14, 1948 (_the day the Jews declared their Independence and established their claim_), eh?
> 
> Rather like coming to the Oklahoma Land Rush four months after the starting-gun had fired...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most Arab-Palestinian gestures, a Day Late and a Shekel Short.
> 
> Too bad they didn't have their s--t together in time to do 'em any good, eh?
> 
> You snooze, you lose.
> 
> True story.
> 
> ========================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue.
Click to expand...





 Are you saying that Israel was not a nation at this time and that the UN had not recognised the fact ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most of these I would have to prove a negative so I will pick an easy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence in 1988. That is the official one.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/#q=palestinian+declaration+of+independence
> 
> EVERY site you will find when you type in Palestinian DOI is from the 1988 one.
> 
> Let me ask you, if they declared independence in 1948, on what land did they do it on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hereby declare the full and complete independence of all
> Palestine, which is bordered by Syria and Lebanon to the north, Syria and the East
> Bank of Jordan to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and Egypt to the
> south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?
Click to expand...





They had none until they declared independence and set up a government. But they tried to take Israel away from the Jews by making a declaration under duress and while under the influence of a foreign power.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine had borders from 1922 to 1947.
> 
> And the USA recognized the West Bank as Arab Palestine, from 1949 to 1967.
Click to expand...





 Who set those borders in place and then drew an official map declaring that the borders of the nation of Palestine are as shown on the map. Care to produce a link giving all the information and map so we can see whish NEONAZI JEW HATRED site you are being fed your disinformation from.


 For the record the borders of old Palestine as set out in the mandate included Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, west bank, gaza, part of Egypt and part of Saudi Arabia. Don't see any problems arising out of the land being given to migrant royal princes from Saudi Arabia and their followers who expelled the indigenous arabs in the process.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Who set those borders in place and then drew an official map declaring that the borders of the nation of Palestine are as shown on the map. Care to produce a link giving all the information and map so we can see whish NEONAZI JEW HATRED site you are being fed your disinformation from.
> 
> For the record the borders of old Palestine as set out in the mandate included Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, west bank, gaza, part of Egypt and part of Saudi Arabia. Don't see any problems arising out of the land being given to migrant royal princes from Saudi Arabia and their followers who expelled the indigenous arabs in the process.



Who drew the borders of Palestine?  The League of Nations.  You know, the same guys who approved the Mandate for Palestine which allowed Jews to make a homeland there?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine had borders from 1922 to 1947.
> 
> And the USA recognized the West Bank as Arab Palestine, from 1949 to 1967.
Click to expand...



WHY DO YOU LIE WHEN YOU KNOW I WILL CATCH YOU OUT.

 America had no dealings with the west bank and did not recognise it until 1967

Palestine?United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 US plans and considerations of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip began already in June 1967, immediately following the Six Day War.
Prior to the Yom Kippur War in October 1973, the US government considered The PLO and Fatah under Yasser Arafat's leadership as a terrorist organization, and as a result did not support Palestinian aspirations at the UN,[3] and US diplomats in the Middle East were explicitly ordered by the State Department never to make any contacts with Arafat or any representative on his behalf.[


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Palestinians did not declare independence on any Israeli territory so I don't see where timing is an issue."
> 
> 
> 
> The wording of the September 22, 1948 communique from the Arabs, stipulates Palestine (all of Old Palestine) in its entirety and within its previously defined borders (_not that it had any to call its own, given that it never existed as a polity, prior to that time_).
> 
> Given that the Jews of Old Palestine had seized and claimed a portion of Old Palestine by which to comprise their own new State of Israel, by the time of the September 22, 1948 Arab Declaration, a sizable percentage of the land referenced therein was no longer theirs to claim.
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, de facto, the lands of the new State of Israel - built on the bleached bones of part of Old Palestine.
> 
> Victory on the battlefield (_being defined as holding off the Arab League and keeping the lands they had been holding_) reaffirmed such Jewish claims.
> 
> Acceptance of this fait accompli by the UN in 1949 lent a considerable air of legitimacy to such a stance.
> 
> The passage of time has affirmed the stance as the operative state of affairs amongst those living in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish-owned lands and others seized in brawls and fighting with the Arabs became, *de facto,* the lands of the new State of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
Click to expand...





 Here we go again twisted old documents and biased Palestinian academicals that have made a livlehood out of "proving" that Palestine had a nation and borders because of the treaty of Lausanne that never even mentioned Palestine.

 More egg on your face when you come up with the bullshit LIES, or do you have a new source of information.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did Israel's declared borders clash with the Palestinian's?"
> 
> Was that in 1948, 1988 or 210088?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Israeli lie. Look up international boundaries and find them on this map of Palestine.
Click to expand...





Found them but cant see in the legend THESE ARE THE INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE. What they are in reality is the International borders of the surrounding nations.
 Unless you can show a map with the above words in its legend ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948.  Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.






 Proof is needed that is indisputable and would stand up in any American court of law.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Found them but cant see in the legend THESE ARE THE INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE. What they are in reality is the International borders of the surrounding nations.
> Unless you can show a map with the above words in its legend ?



God you're one dumb Israeli.  The borders of Palestine were international and seperated Palestine from Transjordan, Egypt, and the Syria-Lebanon Mandate.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> The Palestinians declared independence inside their long held *international borders.*
> 
> There was no clash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They declared independence on territory already declared independent by Israel
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is *not* to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
Click to expand...





 Yet not much later the Un decided that it did and accepted the new borders of Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948.  Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice that this was the year *after* the end of the mandate.
Click to expand...





The mandate ended and the UN took over as detailed in the UN resolutions. The Jews showed enough fortitude and sense to prove they were capable of supporting themselves as a nation under res 181 so were recognised in may 1948 as a nation. The arabs failed to show anything but hostility and belligerence right up until 1988 when they finally agreed to an interim governing body to make the necessary peace deals with their neighbours. That 5 year governing body is still in existence and shows a total lack of commitment to peace by the arab hostiles.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, you cant even provide a map entitled PALESTINE that shows it with international borders
> 
> The only thing you have is a PROPOSED PARTITION PLAN map with proposed borders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists accepted the borders for The State of Israel.  They considered the borders to be legit.
Click to expand...




Yes and the arab muslims didn't at that is why we have perpetual war. Every time the muslims attack they lose a little bit more land, soon they will have to move to gaza and declare that the Palestinian nation


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Yes and the arab muslims didn't at that is why we have perpetual war. Every time the muslims attack they lose a little bit more land, soon they will have to move to gaza and declare that the Palestinian nation



Or they will just cancel the Oslo Accords and demand Israeli citizenship.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine had internationally recognized borders from 1922 to 1948. Right up until the day the Mandate was ended.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon one's point of view.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Lebanon existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Syria existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Transjordan existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Egypt existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> No such widely internationally and formally recognized, autonmous and sovereign Palestine existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> What existed in Old Palestine at the expiration of the British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> The Mediterranean Sea and the borders of those preexisting sovereign states merely acted as the boundary lines for the maximum extent of the political vacuum.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine jumped-in quickly and claimed some of the land associated with that political vacuum as the basis for their own independent State.
> 
> Subsequent events made their claim a Reality.
> 
> Anyone not recognizing that Reality does, indeed, have recourse.
> 
> They may appeal the decision of history by force of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.
> 
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.
> 
> Interesting legal concept.
Click to expand...






It says no such thing as Palestine is not even mentioned, and this is the work of a very biased muslim isn't it who added the term Palestine in his version of the treaty.
 What it really said was that those citizens of the ottoman empire that live in the former lands governed by them will take on the citizenship of the new controlling powers. In this case they became British citizens of Palestine.

 God it is so easy to rip your arguments apart they are so immature in their simplicity.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's another Tinmore lie, as the Palestinians had NO BORDERS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli lie. Look up international boundaries and find them on this map of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found them but cant see in the legend THESE ARE THE INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE. What they are in reality is the International borders of the surrounding nations.
> Unless you can show a map with the above words in its legend ?
Click to expand...


Map is from 1946 and has the UN proposition


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists accepted the borders for The State of Israel.  They considered the borders to be legit.
> 
> 
> 
> They considered the borders of the sovereign states surrounding them to be legit, and they left something of Old Palestine for the Arabs as well, as much in keeping with the 1947 Partition proposal as was practicable after some months of fighting had already altered the internal boundaries between population groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have some links for all that?
Click to expand...






They have been given plenty of times and you ignore them because they rip your arguments to shreds.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who set those borders in place and then drew an official map declaring that the borders of the nation of Palestine are as shown on the map. Care to produce a link giving all the information and map so we can see whish NEONAZI JEW HATRED site you are being fed your disinformation from.
> 
> For the record the borders of old Palestine as set out in the mandate included Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, west bank, gaza, part of Egypt and part of Saudi Arabia. Don't see any problems arising out of the land being given to migrant royal princes from Saudi Arabia and their followers who expelled the indigenous arabs in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who drew the borders of Palestine?  The League of Nations.  You know, the same guys who approved the Mandate for Palestine which allowed Jews to make a homeland there?
Click to expand...


Actually the borders were in place 2,000 years ago when Palestine was so named by the Romans, and that is the area they designated as Palestine. What you call Palestine was the dregs left over for all the arab scum after the royal houses had taken their pick of the prime land.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Found them but cant see in the legend THESE ARE THE INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE. What they are in reality is the International borders of the surrounding nations.
> Unless you can show a map with the above words in its legend ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God you're one dumb Israeli.  The borders of Palestine were international and seperated Palestine from Transjordan, Egypt, and the Syria-Lebanon Mandate.
Click to expand...





And yet at the beginning of the mandate only one of those nations existed, and that was Egypt. The rest were all part of old Palestine that existed until 1920 when the royal houses carved up Palestine for themselves.

 Unless you can show a map or document that says differently ?

What a dumb ISLAMONAZI you are


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Actually the borders were in place 2,000 years ago when Palestine was so named by the Romans, and that is the area they designated as Palestine. What you call Palestine was the dregs left over for all the arab scum after the royal houses had taken their pick of the prime land.



Obviously this is a stupid lie as the borders of Judea were very different and much small than the borders of Palestine.

But that's cool, go ahead and say that the legitimate borders of Israel are the borders of the Roman Province of Judea.  That makes Israel much smaller.  

File:First century palestine.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

http://oteripedia.jw2.de/Königreich_Judäa

http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/israel4_map.gif


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the arab muslims didn't at that is why we have perpetual war. Every time the muslims attack they lose a little bit more land, soon they will have to move to gaza and declare that the Palestinian nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they will just cancel the Oslo Accords and demand Israeli citizenship.
Click to expand...





 Not a given that they will get Israeli citizenship, or that the USA will allow them to cancel the Oslo Accords.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the borders were in place 2,000 years ago when Palestine was so named by the Romans, and that is the area they designated as Palestine. What you call Palestine was the dregs left over for all the arab scum after the royal houses had taken their pick of the prime land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously this is a stupid lie as the borders of Judea were very different and much small than the borders of Palestine.
> 
> But that's cool, go ahead and say that the legitimate borders of Israel are the borders of the Roman Province of Judea.  That makes Israel much smaller.
> 
> File:First century palestine.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> File:RomanEmpire 117.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 But I am not saying that am I DUMB ISLAMONAZI I am saying that during the mandate the extent of Palestine was much larger than it is now.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> But I am not saying that am I DUMB ISLAMONAZI I am saying that during the mandate the extent of Palestine was much larger than it is now.



You said that the borders of Palestine were decided by the Romans 2,000 years ago and that shows you are a stupid Nazi Zionist.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the arab muslims didn't at that is why we have perpetual war. Every time the muslims attack they lose a little bit more land, soon they will have to move to gaza and declare that the Palestinian nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they will just cancel the Oslo Accords and demand Israeli citizenship.
Click to expand...

At which point the Israelis will be able to supplement their supply of toilet paper by re-tasking the formal Palestinian demand, *and* have a good belly laugh at the same time...

A Two-Fer...


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I am not saying that am I DUMB ISLAMONAZI I am saying that during the mandate the extent of Palestine was much larger than it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the borders of Palestine were decided by the Romans 2,000 years ago and that shows you are a stupid Nazi Zionist.
Click to expand...

I'll take a falsely labeled ZioNazi over an accurately labeled IslamoNazi any day...


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I am not saying that am I DUMB ISLAMONAZI I am saying that during the mandate the extent of Palestine was much larger than it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the borders of Palestine were decided by the Romans 2,000 years ago and that shows you are a stupid Nazi Zionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take a falsely labeled ZioNazi over an accurately labeled IslamoNazi any day...
Click to expand...


Of course you would as your Zionist ideas were admired by Nazi henchman Adolf Eichmann.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Found them but cant see in the legend THESE ARE THE INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE. What they are in reality is the International borders of the surrounding nations.
> Unless you can show a map with the above words in its legend ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God you're one dumb Israeli...
Click to expand...

Unlikely.



> "..._The borders of Palestine were international and seperated Palestine from Transjordan, Egypt, and the Syria-Lebanon Mandate._"


The borders of all those autonomous, sovereign, broadly-recognized polities, and the Mediterranean Sea, did, indeed, run along the edges of the political vacuum and unincorporated region known as Palestine.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the borders of Palestine were decided by the Romans 2,000 years ago and that shows you are a stupid Nazi Zionist.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take a falsely labeled ZioNazi over an accurately labeled IslamoNazi any day...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you would as your Zionist ideas were admired by Nazi henchman Adolf Eichmann.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback.


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends upon one's point of view.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Lebanon existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Syria existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Transjordan existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> A widely internationally and formally recognized, autonomous and sovereign Egypt existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> No such widely internationally and formally recognized, autonmous and sovereign Palestine existed on May 15, 1948.
> 
> What existed in Old Palestine at the expiration of the British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> The Mediterranean Sea and the borders of those preexisting sovereign states merely acted as the boundary lines for the maximum extent of the political vacuum.
> 
> The Jews of Old Palestine jumped-in quickly and claimed some of the land associated with that political vacuum as the basis for their own independent State.
> 
> Subsequent events made their claim a Reality.
> 
> Anyone not recognizing that Reality does, indeed, have recourse.
> 
> They may appeal the decision of history by force of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Mandate was a political vacuum bordered by legitimate and sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.
> 
> Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says no such thing as Palestine is not even mentioned, and this is the work of a very biased muslim isn't it who added the term Palestine in his version of the treaty.
> What it really said was that those citizens of the ottoman empire that live in the former lands governed by them will take on the citizenship of the new controlling powers. In this case they became British citizens of Palestine.
> 
> God it is so easy to rip your arguments apart they are so immature in their simplicity.
Click to expand...

Clear transition from (1) Ottoman subjects to (2) citizens of the British Mandate to (3) stateless persons. Once the Mandate ended, there was nothing to be a citizen *OF*. Unless, of course, you had the brains, and the balls, to strike out on your own, seize your moment, and declare a new State, carved from part of the lands associated with that sudden political vacuum, or otherwise secede from such an Imperfect Union.


----------



## RoccoR

Kondor3; Phoenall; P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Well, I'm not sure this is exactly the right way to interpret the events.



Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A vacuum with citizens defined by law. And international borders too.
> 
> Interesting legal concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says no such thing as Palestine is not even mentioned, and this is the work of a very biased muslim isn't it who added the term Palestine in his version of the treaty.
> What it really said was that those citizens of the ottoman empire that live in the former lands governed by them will take on the citizenship of the new controlling powers. In this case they became British citizens of Palestine.
> 
> God it is so easy to rip your arguments apart they are so immature in their simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clear transition from (1) Ottoman subjects to (2) citizens of the British Mandate to (3) stateless persons. Once the Mandate ended, there was nothing to be a citizen *OF*. Unless, of course, you had the brains, and the balls, to strike out on your own, seize your moment, and declare a new State, carved from part of the lands associated with that sudden political vacuum, or otherwise secede from such an Imperfect Union.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The inhabitants remained the citizen of the Government of Palestine as originally established.  The only thing that changed hands was the successor of the government from the UK to the UNPC.

Again, the reason the Arab-Palestinians insist it is not is because they lose their justification for the conflict; and they lose the premise that the sovereignty and right to self-determination was taken from them.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

roccor said:


> "...well, i'm not sure this is exactly the right way to interpret the events..."
> 
> 
> 
> kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...clear transition from (1) ottoman subjects to (2) citizens of the british mandate to (3) stateless persons.  Once the mandate ended, there was nothing to be a citizen *of*..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roccor said:
> 
> 
> 
> the inhabitants remained the citizen of the government of palestine as originally established.  The only thing that changed hands was the successor of the government from the uk to the unpc..."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sorry, Rocco, and I know, in advance, that I am flying in the face of your superior scholarship in such matters, but, sorry, no sale; at least not at first or second glance.

Given that the Jews of Old Palestine declared Statehood, to go into effect at the very instant in time that the Mandate expired...

Given that the Arabs of Old Palestine refused to cooperate with the UNPC or allow it to assume power...

Given that the UNPC never assumed the reins of power nor got beyond the working and planning committee working stage...

Given that the UNPC - as a governing body - never actually set foot on the soil of Old Palestine or any of its constituent Jewish-held or Arab-held parts...

Given that the UNPC itself adjourned sine die, outside the boundaries of Old Palestine, on May 17, 1948, conceding the Realities of the situation, and that it never exercised governmental control of any kind over the region of Old Palestine...

I respectfully submit that a _Government on Paper_ is *not* a _Government in the Real World_...

A Polish government in exile continued to exist between September 1939 (_the Fall of Poland, at the start of WWII_) and December 1990, when Lech Walesa took office as President of Poland, after the Iron Curtain fell...

But after the establishment of the Soviet-controlled government of Poland in the first half of 1945, and recognition of that Soviet-controlled government by the Western Allies, and, subsequently, the world, the Polish government in exile stopped being a governing body de facto or de jure, and quickly transformed into a standing joke in diplomatic circles...

Sadly, the UNPC did not govern a single day of its existence, and adjourned two days after the Israeli declaration of Statehood, left with nothing to do but write a final report to the UN General Assembly and to go home without ever accomplishing a thing...

If the UNPC had stayed in operation and governed the Arab -controlled sections of Old Palestine, then they would have 'had a shot' at being labeled as an actual Government, of an established and widely recognized government-as-reality; the polity which those Arab-Muslim Palestinians _could_ have pointed to as their basis for citizenship...

A government on paper that does not and cannot and will not govern, is, in truth, no government at all...

Taking that to the next logical level, if, indeed, and in truth, there was no government at all, then, the appellation of Stateless Persons makes a great deal of sense, and eventually came to be construed as operative in fact, as well as du jour; rendering them Residents or Inhabitants or Natives, but lacking a viable polity to be Citizens _of_...

It's the difference between a paper government and a real government...

In the Real World, anyway...

I can see, on paper, how you could pitch the 'Government' idea in the way you did...

Hopefully, you, in turn, can see, in Reality, how one could pitch the Stateless idea in the way that I did...

There's more than one way to skin a _Failed Government That Never Was_, and I think a excellent yoeman-caliber case may be made for just such an approach... 

Or so my own reflections and musing on the subject have directed me, to date... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Respectfully (_in honor of your own well-known and collegial tradition_)...

Kondor


----------



## RoccoR

Kondor3,  _et al,_

First, let me say that in nearly every respect, you are correct in face of facts.  Yet there is something more to the drama.



Kondor3 said:


> I can see, on paper, how you could pitch the 'Government' idea in the way you did...
> 
> Hopefully, you, in turn, can see, in Reality, how one could pitch the Stateless idea in the way that I did...
> 
> There's more than one way to skin a _Failed Government That Never Was_, and I think a excellent yoeman-caliber case may be made for just such an approach...
> 
> Or so my own reflections and musing on the subject have directed me, to date...


*(COMMENT)*

At the time of the Arab Attack in 1948, there were two governments on the ground.

The newly created Israeli Government.
The Successor Government (UNPC) over the remainder of the Territory.
The UNPC was directed to stand-down _(relieved of further responsibility)_ for very practical reasons.  The remainder of the territory was in conventional conflict.  

At the end of the Conflict, there was nothing for the UNPC to govern.  There was Israel, which through series of battlefield successes, actually controlled more territory that originally allotted, and the two occupation zones _[(Jordan in the West Bank)(Egypt in the Gaza Strip)]_.  The Arab League, as a belligerent external influence) forced out the UNPC by use of force in an attempt to make null and void the implementation of the Resolution.

As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.  The answer is no!  They were either:

Citizens of the State of Israel, within the territory it controlled, at the time of the Armistice.
Citizens of the former Trusteeship now occupied by the Arab League, at the time of the Armistice.

But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.  Just as you rightly point-out that the UNPC had to relinquish any authority or responsibility it had because it could no longer maintain control, so it is with the Palestinians.  They had absolutely no control over the territory occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians.  One could say that if anyone denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination, it was the Arab League.

Otherwise, we actually agree.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

RoccoR said:


> "..._Otherwise, we actually agree_..."


Much obliged, Rocco - now _that's_ what I call a good exchange, with some good business done.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Kondor3,  _et al,_
> 
> First, let me say that in nearly every respect, you are correct in face of facts.  Yet there is something more to the drama.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see, on paper, how you could pitch the 'Government' idea in the way you did...
> 
> Hopefully, you, in turn, can see, in Reality, how one could pitch the Stateless idea in the way that I did...
> 
> There's more than one way to skin a _Failed Government That Never Was_, and I think a excellent yoeman-caliber case may be made for just such an approach...
> 
> Or so my own reflections and musing on the subject have directed me, to date...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the time of the Arab Attack in 1948, there were two governments on the ground.
> 
> The newly created Israeli Government.
> The Successor Government (UNPC) over the remainder of the Territory.
> The UNPC was directed to stand-down _(relieved of further responsibility)_ for very practical reasons.  The remainder of the territory was in conventional conflict.
> 
> At the end of the Conflict, there was nothing for the UNPC to govern.  There was Israel, which through series of battlefield successes, actually controlled more territory that originally allotted, and the two occupation zones _[(Jordan in the West Bank)(Egypt in the Gaza Strip)]_.  The Arab League, as a belligerent external influence) forced out the UNPC by use of force in an attempt to make null and void the implementation of the Resolution.
> 
> *As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.  The answer is no!  They were either:
> 
> Citizens of the State of Israel, within the territory it controlled, at the time of the Armistice.
> Citizens of the former Trusteeship now occupied by the Arab League, at the time of the Armistice.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.*  Just as you rightly point-out that the UNPC had to relinquish any authority or responsibility it had because it could no longer maintain control, so it is with the Palestinians.  They had absolutely no control over the territory occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians.  One could say that if anyone denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination, it was the Arab League.
> 
> Otherwise, we actually agree.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
--------------------
The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​


----------



## Indeependent

Hey TinBrain, keep pulling out more outdated documents from 20+ or 1000+ years before 1948.
Maybe we should go back to the Code of Hammurabi.
Your intellectual dishonesty in is actually quite quaint.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

And you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read.  And you very often site the wrong applicable directive.

Also, I recognize the notation of your source document: 	Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database) 

Please note that the Palestine Citizenship Order was amended.  That is why you don't find it on the  UNISPAL listing for 1925.The APPENDIX II.  Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931.  AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.   The 23rd day of July, 1931.  "This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal Order."

While the 1931 Amendment is still considered the definitive order, the most often used reference is the Constituent factors - Section A, Citizenship --- DEFINITION OF A &#8220;REFUGEE&#8221; UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951); because it is UN guidance in stead of LoN era material; although it is substantially the same instruction.




P F Tinmore said:


> You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
> --------------------
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: &#8220;The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.&#8221;123 And, thereafter, &#8220;Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.&#8221;124
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> &#8220;Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.&#8221;​
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> &#8220;Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.&#8221;​
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> &#8220;(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them&#8230;&#8221;92​


*(COMMENT)*

The Citizenship Order stipulates "Palestine" --- BUT, what was meant by "Palestine?"
_*SOURCE:*_
Palestine Order in Council

[quote="The Palestine Order in Council, 1922.]1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​[/quote]

Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:

1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;

2.	Those who exercised their right of option;

3.	Those who obtained naturalization.​
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship.  Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector.  This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.

*(CLARIFICATION)*

At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.​
It can hardly be any planner than that.  Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> And you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read.  And you very often site the wrong applicable directive.
> 
> Also, I recognize the notation of your source document: 	Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)
> 
> Please note that the Palestine Citizenship Order was amended.  That is why you don't find it on the  UNISPAL listing for 1925.The APPENDIX II.  Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931.  AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.   The 23rd day of July, 1931.  "This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal Order."
> 
> While the 1931 Amendment is still considered the definitive order, the most often used reference is the Constituent factors - Section A, Citizenship --- DEFINITION OF A REFUGEE UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951); because it is UN guidance in stead of LoN era material; although it is substantially the same instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
> --------------------
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Citizenship Order stipulates "Palestine" --- BUT, what was meant by "Palestine?"
> _*SOURCE:*_
> Palestine Order in Council
> 
> [quote="The Palestine Order in Council, 1922.]1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
Click to expand...


Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:

1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;

2.	Those who exercised their right of option;

3.	Those who obtained naturalization.​
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship.  Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector.  This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.

*(CLARIFICATION)*

At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.​
It can hardly be any planner than that.  Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

What are you trying to say?

How does it change what I posted?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

You questioned:


As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.

But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.

Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.



P F Tinmore said:


> What are you trying to say?
> 
> How does it change what I posted?


*(COMMENT)*

Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner. 

The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.

It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> And you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read.  And you very often site the wrong applicable directive.
> 
> Also, I recognize the notation of your source document: 	Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)
> 
> Please note that the Palestine Citizenship Order was amended.  That is why you don't find it on the  UNISPAL listing for 1925.The APPENDIX II.  Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931.  AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.   The 23rd day of July, 1931.  "This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal Order."
> 
> While the 1931 Amendment is still considered the definitive order, the most often used reference is the Constituent factors - Section A, Citizenship --- DEFINITION OF A REFUGEE UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951); because it is UN guidance in stead of LoN era material; although it is substantially the same instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
> --------------------
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Citizenship Order stipulates "Palestine" --- BUT, what was meant by "Palestine?"
> _*SOURCE:*_
> Palestine Order in Council
> 
> [quote="The Palestine Order in Council, 1922.]1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
Click to expand...


Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:

1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;

2.	Those who exercised their right of option;

3.	Those who obtained naturalization.​
Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship.  Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector.  This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.

*(CLARIFICATION)*

At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.​
It can hardly be any planner than that.  Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

*and you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read*

Yes !!! I've been trying to tell him this for so long !  He constantly brings up documents/articles that he thinks backs up his statement, but they don't !


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> You questioned:
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.
> 
> Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> 
> How does it change what I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
> 
> It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.



I presented evidence showing that they were.

What part of your post specifically says they were not?


----------



## Kondor3

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> You questioned:
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.
> 
> Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> 
> How does it change what I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
> 
> It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Arab-Muslim Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been grasping at legal straws for decades in a desperate attempt to legitimize and render their claims superior to those of the Jews of the modern-day State of Israel.

Quite obviously, and just as embarrassingly, these same Arab-Muslim Palestinians lean far too heavily upon old imperial statute and treaty text in order to invent and market and reinforce their claims in ways never anticipated nor intended by those drafting or ratifying those texts.

This is a futile exercise in time-travel, attempting to invent or reinterpret modern-day relevancy (in the form of a definition of competency or jurisdiction) for such texts (and issuing authorities) where none exists, de facto nor de jure.

The futility of the exercise is compounded by the concept of operative force. Such texts no longer carry the weight and authority of operative law in the Real World which we all inhabit.

It is understandable that the 'underdog' in this conflict (the Arab-Muslim Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza and their sympathizers and supporters) would attempt to convince others that these texts are relevant or operative, in light of the idea that they have little else remaining to them to cling to or to utilize as a basis for their stale, obsolete, set-aside claims, but their dearth of operative legal 'ammunition' does not diminish that futility.

Most people outside their Internal Camp 'hear' the arguments; it's just that most people outside their Internal Camp have long-since set aside those arguments as clumsily and malevolently contrived, stretching credibility to the breaking point, and entirely insufficient for the purposes they have in mind; never mind impractical and no longer operative.

Despite my heavy bias in favor of Israel, I find these doomed legal machinations and gyrations on the part of the Palestinians to be simultaneously wildly amusing and tragically sad and pathetic.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> You questioned:
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.
> 
> Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> 
> How does it change what I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
> 
> It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented evidence showing that they were.
> 
> What part of your post specifically says they were not?
Click to expand...


And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't


----------



## Victory67

We all know how this will end.

Israel, in an attempt to get on the good side of the international community and to avoid most legal action, will withdraw to the Seperation Barrier while leaving a military force in the Jorday Valley.

They built this barrier as a Plan B border in case peace talks prove fruitless.

Will they consider this their final border?  Probably not.  But who knows.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3,  _et al,_
> 
> First, let me say that in nearly every respect, you are correct in face of facts.  Yet there is something more to the drama.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see, on paper, how you could pitch the 'Government' idea in the way you did...
> 
> Hopefully, you, in turn, can see, in Reality, how one could pitch the Stateless idea in the way that I did...
> 
> There's more than one way to skin a _Failed Government That Never Was_, and I think a excellent yoeman-caliber case may be made for just such an approach...
> 
> Or so my own reflections and musing on the subject have directed me, to date...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the time of the Arab Attack in 1948, there were two governments on the ground.
> 
> The newly created Israeli Government.
> The Successor Government (UNPC) over the remainder of the Territory.
> The UNPC was directed to stand-down _(relieved of further responsibility)_ for very practical reasons.  The remainder of the territory was in conventional conflict.
> 
> At the end of the Conflict, there was nothing for the UNPC to govern.  There was Israel, which through series of battlefield successes, actually controlled more territory that originally allotted, and the two occupation zones _[(Jordan in the West Bank)(Egypt in the Gaza Strip)]_.  The Arab League, as a belligerent external influence) forced out the UNPC by use of force in an attempt to make null and void the implementation of the Resolution.
> 
> *As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.  The answer is no!  They were either:
> 
> Citizens of the State of Israel, within the territory it controlled, at the time of the Armistice.
> Citizens of the former Trusteeship now occupied by the Arab League, at the time of the Armistice.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.*  Just as you rightly point-out that the UNPC had to relinquish any authority or responsibility it had because it could no longer maintain control, so it is with the Palestinians.  They had absolutely no control over the territory occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians.  One could say that if anyone denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination, it was the Arab League.
> 
> Otherwise, we actually agree.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
> --------------------
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
Click to expand...





 So at what date prior to the start of the treaty of Lausanne did Palestine become a state. When did its inhabitants declare they were independent of the ottoman empire and would be known as the state of Palestine. Because that is what would need to happen before the inhabitants became Palestinian citizens in their own right. 
 At no time is Palestine or Palestinian citizen mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne as no such thing existed. You have repeatedly ignored the question of when, what and where and keep posting the biased report of an islamonazi as if it was International law, even after it was deemed inadmissible by all his peers. Under the mandate the inhabitants of Palestine became British citizens of Palestine as said in the mandate which precedes the treaty of Lausanne which only ratified the mandates words.

 Now try and produce an unbiased, truthful and corroborated link to show Palestine had been incorporated as a nation prior to 1988.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> And you, my friend, frequently misinterpret what you read.  And you very often site the wrong applicable directive.
> 
> Also, I recognize the notation of your source document: 	Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)
> 
> Please note that the Palestine Citizenship Order was amended.  That is why you don't find it on the  UNISPAL listing for 1925.The APPENDIX II.  Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931.  AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.   The 23rd day of July, 1931.  "This Order shall be known as the Palestinian Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1931, and shall be read and construed as one with the Principal Order."
> 
> While the 1931 Amendment is still considered the definitive order, the most often used reference is the Constituent factors - Section A, Citizenship --- DEFINITION OF A REFUGEE UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (A/AC.25/W/61 9 April 1951); because it is UN guidance in stead of LoN era material; although it is substantially the same instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You frequently draw your conclusions on false premise.
> --------------------
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> 
> The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> 84To qualify for Palestinian nationality by virtue of this paragraph, the person had to be: (1) a Turkish subject, or citizen; and (2) habitually resident in Palestine. While Palestinian nationality in accordance with international law (the Treaty of Lausanne) was created, as shown above, on 6 August 1924, the same nationality was effectively created on 1 August 1925 based on domestic law (the Palestinian Citizenship Order).
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Citizenship Order stipulates "Palestine" --- BUT, what was meant by "Palestine?"
> _*SOURCE:*_
> Palestine Order in Council
> 
> [quote="The Palestine Order in Council, 1922.]1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next you have to understand the various amendments to that topic finally established three broad categories of Citizenship to the Mandate of Palestine:
> 
> 1. Those who became Palestinian citizens by right, by reason of the fact that they normally resided in that country as at 6 August 1924;
> 
> 2.	Those who exercised their right of option;
> 
> 3.	Those who obtained naturalization.​
> Finally, one must understand that, although the Mandatory (UK) was near solely responsible for the establishment of the entity known as Palestine, with the borders they set in place, it was "not a sovereign state," either then - or - at the time the Mandate terminated and handed the successorship back to the UN Trusteeship.  Citizenship, like many of the protectorates of the time, derived that status from the protector.  This status was made clear in the official pronouncement in 1948.
> 
> *(CLARIFICATION)*
> 
> At the time the mandate was terminated, it was made abundantly clear that:
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.​
> It can hardly be any planner than that.  Every argument against this pronouncement is merely an attempt to twist the words to suit the pro-Palestinian Agenda.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


What are you trying to say?

How does it change what I posted?[/QUOTE]





That your source is biased and based on untruths and fabrication. It does not change what you post just the meaning of what you post. So instead of being a foregone conclusion it becomes a fantasy world that never existed. Once you understand this you become better informed on the reality that Palestine was never a valid nation until 1988.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> You questioned:
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.
> 
> Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> 
> How does it change what I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
> 
> It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented evidence showing that they were.
> 
> What part of your post specifically says they were not?
Click to expand...





But if that evidence is basically flawed then it is not evidence but personal opinion, and therein lies the problem. You take one persons written testimony as factual without cross checking his sources. When we do this we find that he has manipulated the accounts to include the term's Palestine and Palestinian were they never existed. In other cases he has actually LIED OPENLY about the content of treaties to support his POV.

 There is sufficient evidence to show that the arab muslims never were Palestinian citizens as no state of Palestine ever existed until 1988. 

 Unless you can produce a treaty signed by the leaders of Palestine with an appended map showing its borders in the legend. No such treaty or map exists anywhere in the world so you may as well stop looking.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> We all know how this will end.
> 
> Israel, in an attempt to get on the good side of the international community and to avoid most legal action, will withdraw to the Seperation Barrier while leaving a military force in the Jorday Valley.
> 
> They built this barrier as a Plan B border in case peace talks prove fruitless.
> 
> Will they consider this their final border?  Probably not.  But who knows.






Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore;  _et al,_
> 
> You questioned:
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> But they were never citizens of the State or Nation of Palestine.
> 
> Then attempted to use Citizenship rules to substantiate it.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Not only did you use the unamended version of the PCO 1925 Order, you were suggesting that "Palestinian Citizenship" was govern by the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  While the treaty had a minor impact on the already existing law, it neither changed the basic orders, nor conferred or implied any special nation or sovereignty on the Palestinians above that bestowed by the High Commissioner.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was written to comply with the already existing Mandate and Orders in Council, and not independently or to alter the meaning or intent of those previous directives.
> 
> It was "irrelevant" as you are so fond of saying.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand the question, the issue is, legally were the Arab Palestinians ever citizens unto their own country or nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented evidence showing that they were.
> 
> What part of your post specifically says they were not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't
Click to expand...


Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.

3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.

4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presented evidence showing that they were.
> 
> What part of your post specifically says they were not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.
> 
> 3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> 4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
Click to expand...


Because of the special circumstances surrounding Palestine, it was treated a bit differently than the other successor Arab states, which came out of the Mandates.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.
> 
> 3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> 4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of the special circumstances surrounding Palestine, it was treated a bit differently than the other successor Arab states, which came out of the Mandates.
Click to expand...


Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.



Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?

prove it.


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
Click to expand...


Do you not read the news?
US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.
> 
> 3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> 4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the special circumstances surrounding Palestine, it was treated a bit differently than the other successor Arab states, which came out of the Mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
> 
> There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.
Click to expand...


Illegal external interference is why Palestinians lost a large chunk of land when 5 Arab states attacked Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the special circumstances surrounding Palestine, it was treated a bit differently than the other successor Arab states, which came out of the Mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
> 
> There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal external interference is why Palestinians lost a large chunk of land when 5 Arab states attacked Israel
Click to expand...


How did that violate the Palestinian's right to self determination?


----------



## Kondor3

aris2chat said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
Click to expand...

If true, then...

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha...

Time for a Happy Dance...







Hell, the _Jordanians_ don't even want those crazy bastard Palestinians... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Major bitch-slap to the Pals, by their own kind...

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancin'-Christ... you can't make up shit like this...

Ahhhhh... life is good...


----------



## Victory67

Uncorroborated bullshit from a very biased source.  They call it the "so-called 'West Bank'".


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
Click to expand...


Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.

No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
Click to expand...


I believe Egypt's aid was cut off after the coup there.  Jordan needs all the aid it can get now, because of all the Syrian refugees.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
Click to expand...


Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.
Click to expand...


Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
Click to expand...


Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.
Click to expand...


Neither do the Palestinians


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove
Click to expand...


I have. You just can't keep up.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.
Click to expand...

Technically, you are correct.

What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.

Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. You just can't keep up.
Click to expand...


You always claim that, but in reality, you didn't. You might have posted something that I missed, but Im certain it proved nothing as usual


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do the Palestinians
Click to expand...

Warn a guy before you tell a good joke like that one...

Damned funny...

Entirely true...

Within the operative realm of the Real World, anyway...


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove
Click to expand...


In this case, Tinmore might be right, for once.  Jordan needed incentives to sign a peace treaty with Israel.  Jordan has also asked the U.S. to increase its aid in the last couple of years because of the massive amount of refugees it has been absorbing from Syria, and America has obliged.  The Syrian situation is a major humanitarian crisis.


----------



## Kondor3

One reason for the Jordanians throwing the Pals under the bus is just as good as another...

It is the act of 'throwing under the bus' itself which signifies, more than the underlying causes...

So much for Arab-Muslim solidarity with the Pals... another in a long line of Epic Fails in that context...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Just about the only remaining Arab-Muslim power in the region that is even vaguely and marginally credible as a military deterrent to Israel - given how badly trashed the rest of Israel's neighbors are at-present - and that minor 'power' just threw the Pals under the bus.

Somehow, I don't think the Arab cavalry is coming over the hill this time, to rescue the Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Well, then let's look at the facts.  Your first one is wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.


*(COMMENT)*

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State.  The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3).  The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."  Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way.  They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading.  None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers. 

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says _(last Sentence)_:  "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.  

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Indeependent

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, then let's look at the facts.  Your first one is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State.  The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3).  The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."  Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way.  They deal with the larger territories.
> 
> And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading.  None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Article 8 of the Angora Agreement of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says _(last Sentence)_:  "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  Very, very, important.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.
> 
> I hope this helps you.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You're wrong; just plain wrong.
Tin has a napkin that he just artificially carbon dated back to Ancient Rome that says otherwise.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, then let's look at the facts.  Your first one is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State.  The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3).  The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."  Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way.  They deal with the larger territories.
> 
> And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading.  None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says _(last Sentence)_:  "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  Very, very, important.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.
> 
> I hope this helps you.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presented evidence showing that they were.
> 
> What part of your post specifically says they were not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.
> 
> 3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> 4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
Click to expand...





 1) no actual hard evidence of this fact, just the twisted words of a Palestinian scholar.

 2) they did not they became British citizens of Palestine

 3) wrong they became British citizens of the mandate of Palestine

 4) which they refused to exercise in a proper manner until 1988, they allowed the combined arab armies to interfere in their choice and lost the chance of peace and a nation in 1948.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.
> 
> 3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.
> 
> 4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the special circumstances surrounding Palestine, it was treated a bit differently than the other successor Arab states, which came out of the Mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
> 
> There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.
Click to expand...





And the illegal external influence was from the arab's themselves who have used the Palestinians as pawns in their world domination game for over a century now.

Yes and the Palestinians blew in big time when they allowed the combined arab armies enter into Palestine, this was the external influence that brought a halt to their chance of building a nation.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Agreed!



P F Tinmore said:


> And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, by the Allied Powers, and not the way you claim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
Click to expand...




 Easy Peasy DUMBASS ISLAMONAZI 

 1) it was posted at the weekend and you replied to the post

 2) it is all over the internet as shown here

The world from here: Why Jordan relies on Israel to secure the Jordan Valley | JPost | Israel News

Jordan invokes 1994 peace treaty with Israel for a say in Kerry?s Jordan Valley security and Jerusalem plans

Netanyahu, Jordan's King meet in Amman - CNN.com


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
> 
> There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal external interference is why Palestinians lost a large chunk of land when 5 Arab states attacked Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that violate the Palestinian's right to self determination?
Click to expand...





EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE that you try to blame on anyone but the arabs


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?
> 
> prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not read the news?
> US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
Click to expand...






Are you now saying that Jordan has no authority of Jordan ?               what a marrooooon


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.
Click to expand...





And Israel can do what it wants on its side of the border negotiated with Jordan. Palestine has no borders so cant do anything


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, then let's look at the facts.  Your first one is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State.  The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3).  The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."  Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way.  They deal with the larger territories.
> 
> And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading.  None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says _(last Sentence)_:  "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  Very, very, important.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.
> 
> I hope this helps you.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.
Click to expand...


What verbosity? You mean the fact Rocco, yet AGAIN for the millionth times dismantled your lie ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, then let's look at the facts.  Your first one is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State.  The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3).  The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."  Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way.  They deal with the larger territories.
> 
> And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading.  None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says _(last Sentence)_:  "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  Very, very, important.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.
> 
> I hope this helps you.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.
Click to expand...


Palestine was NOT a successor state


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, you are correct.
> 
> What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.
> 
> Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.
Click to expand...






Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, then let's look at the facts.  Your first one is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the facts.
> 
> 1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State.  The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3).  The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."  Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way.  They deal with the larger territories.
> 
> And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading.  None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says _(last Sentence)_:  "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.
> 
> The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers."  Very, very, important.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.
> 
> I hope this helps you.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.
Click to expand...





Then produce the de facto treaty that was signed by the Palestinian leaders agreeing to those international borders, and a map drawn up at that time detailing those borders so that they be set in stone for ever more. That is all you need do to prove your point, like we have done with the Borders of Israel as agreed between Israel and Egypt / Jordan


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tin is the guy in front of you on line who argues with the cashier for 30 minutes that his expired coupon is still good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no expiration date on nationality or citizenship.
Click to expand...





 So you now accept that they are Ottoman subjects and that no nation of Palestine has ever existed


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.

There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.



Phoenall said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, you are correct.
> 
> What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.
> 
> Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace."  Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce.  And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.

The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan.  Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view.  Our policy should be prefaced with the policy:  First - Do No Harm!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.
> 
> No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case, Tinmore might be right, for once.  Jordan needed incentives to sign a peace treaty with Israel.  Jordan has also asked the U.S. to increase its aid in the last couple of years because of the massive amount of refugees it has been absorbing from Syria, and America has obliged.  The Syrian situation is a major humanitarian crisis.
Click to expand...


Palestinian statehood and peace talks are much farther reaching than just Israel and the WB.  It will effect the region and the world.  With such a sizable palestinian population in Jordan and Jordan still responsible for the Muslim sites on the mount, it is and will remain an Issue for Jordan.  
There is still no unity government in the PA and hamas has stated they will agree to any peace deal with Israel.  Jordan should have a say as peace in the WB will concern it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.
> 
> There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, you are correct.
> 
> What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.
> 
> Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace."  Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce.  And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.
> 
> The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan.  Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view.  Our policy should be prefaced with the policy:  First - Do No Harm!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.
> 
> There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace."  Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce.  And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.
> 
> The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan.  Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view.  Our policy should be prefaced with the policy:  First - Do No Harm!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
Click to expand...



Tinmore, what you just said proves just how incredibly brainwashed you are. You sound just like them LOL.

People like you will always excuse Jihad.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.
> 
> There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace."  Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce.  And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.
> 
> The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan.  Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view.  Our policy should be prefaced with the policy:  First - Do No Harm!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, what you just said proves just how incredibly brainwashed you are. You sound just like them LOL.
> 
> People like you will always excuse Jihad.
Click to expand...


What do you have against self defense?

Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands._"


No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.


----------



## Victory67

Kondor3 said:


> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.



No matter what the Fascists want, the Palestinians aren't going to dissappear.

Your racist and repressed homosexual hatred for the Arabs needs to be dealt with by professionals.


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what the Fascists want, the Palestinians aren't going to dissappear. Your racist and repressed homosexual hatred for the Arabs needs to be dealt with by professionals.
Click to expand...

You're a funny little critter...

Nobody takes you seriously, but you're an amusing little feller...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, what you just said proves just how incredibly brainwashed you are. You sound just like them LOL.
> 
> People like you will always excuse Jihad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
Click to expand...


"Self Defense". 

HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny

Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> *Palestinians are violent by nature*. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them



By nature?  That's a pretty racist thing to say.  I'd expect something like that from a Neo-Nazi or Klansman.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands._"
> 
> 
> 
> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.
Click to expand...


If Israel hates the Palestinians so much, why did they put Israel inside Palestine?

Perhaps they should have looked for a friendlier place.


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what the Fascists want, the Palestinians aren't going to dissappear.
> 
> Your racist and repressed homosexual hatred for the Arabs needs to be dealt with by professionals.
Click to expand...


It really is silly for you to state that someone has "repressed homosexual hatred" when here you are, 18 years old and never kissed a girl.  Remember, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, you were the one who had told us under your previous appellation that you didn't party and don't date.  As far as racist hatred, I would think that the Arabs do a good job of that themselves.  Haven't you heard that the Presiden of the Sudan wants all Christians and Blacks out of the country.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them


How would you act if your neighborhood was occupied by a foreign army?

To go from a 2 minute walk to your neighborhood market, to an over 2 hour trek with no guarantee you'll be allowed access to the store?

What would you do in that situation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, what you just said proves just how incredibly brainwashed you are. You sound just like them LOL.
> 
> People like you will always excuse Jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
Click to expand...


If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.

Give me a short list.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> It really is silly for you to state that someone has "repressed homosexual hatred" when here you are, 18 years old and never kissed a girl.  Remember, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, you were the one who had told us under your previous appellation that you didn't party and don't date.  As far as racist hatred, I would think that the Arabs do a good job of that themselves.  Haven't you heard that the Presiden of the Sudan wants all Christians and Blacks out of the country.


And Israeli's are trying to do the same thing to the indigenous, non-Jewish residents of that area.

It seems the only ones not actively trying to "wipe out" an entire population of people, are the Palestinian's.


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands._"
> 
> 
> 
> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Israel hates the Palestinians so much, why did they put Israel inside Palestine?
> 
> Perhaps they should have looked for a friendlier place.
Click to expand...


Since there was never a country of Palestine, just a territory, couldn't Israelis have part of that huge territory.  After all, they were there before the Arabs just like the early Christians were in the Middle East before the Arabs invaded.  And, let's face it, Mr. Tinmore, the Arabs hate the Israelis also.  It is killing them that one small dot on the map is being governed by Jews.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
Click to expand...

*Short List*

1. Palestinians are violent to everyone


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel hates the Palestinians so much, why did they put Israel inside Palestine?
> 
> Perhaps they should have looked for a friendlier place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there was never a country of Palestine, just a territory, couldn't Israelis have part of that huge territory.  After all, they were there before the Arabs just like the early Christians were in the Middle East before the Arabs invaded.  And, let's face it, Mr. Tinmore, the Arabs hate the Israelis also.  It is killing them that one small dot on the map is being governed by Jews.
Click to expand...


If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?

You are just spouting Israeli bullshit.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone*.
> 
> Give me a short list.
Click to expand...


How did you come to that conclusion ? Making things up again ?

Besides Israel, even Egypt is sick of them, hence the closing if the border, and the threats to attack Gaza.


----------



## Victory67

Hossfly said:


> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone



Racist lies like this only breed more hatred of Jews.


----------



## Sally

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> *Palestinians are violent by nature*. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nature?  That's a pretty racist thing to say.  I'd expect something like that from a Neo-Nazi or Klansman.
Click to expand...



We see what is happening in the rest of the Middle East, and basically the Arabs are the same wherever they are living.  By the way, the NeoNazis and the Islamicfascists are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game nowadays against their common enemy -- the Jews.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Since there was never a country of Palestine, just a territory, couldn't Israelis have part of that huge territory.


No.  Next question?




Sally said:


> After all, they were there before the Arabs just like the early Christians were in the Middle East before the Arabs invaded.


At the time Zionists declared Israel to be a sovereign state, jews made up only 10% of the population in that area.



Sally said:


> And, let's face it, Mr. Tinmore, the Arabs hate the Israelis also.


That is a direct result of Israeli aggression. 




Sally said:


> It is killing them that one small dot on the map is being governed by Jews.


It's not being governed by jews!

It's being governed by right-wing assholes, who think their shit don't stink.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone
Click to expand...


Brilliant post! 

Everyone like whom?


----------



## Billo_Really

Victory67 said:


> Racist lies like this only breed more hatred of Jews.


The Israeli's treat the Pal's, like the Nazis treated the jews.

We've almost come full circle.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel hates the Palestinians so much, why did they put Israel inside Palestine?
> 
> Perhaps they should have looked for a friendlier place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was never a country of Palestine, just a territory, couldn't Israelis have part of that huge territory.  After all, they were there before the Arabs just like the early Christians were in the Middle East before the Arabs invaded.  And, let's face it, Mr. Tinmore, the Arabs hate the Israelis also.  It is killing them that one small dot on the map is being governed by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?
> 
> *You are just spouting Israeli bullshit*.
Click to expand...


That's rich, coming from someone who spouts Palestinian bullshit all day long.

*If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?*

Thank the hostile Palestinians and then the surrounding Arab states for that.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racist lies like this only breed more hatred of Jews.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep parroting the same crap ? 

Why don't you go have some fun in the Badlands forum, this one is for adults, little boy


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
> 
> 
> 
> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant post!
> 
> Everyone like whom?
Click to expand...

Everyone=alles


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> That's rich, coming from someone who spouts Palestinian bullshit all day long.
> 
> *If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?*
> 
> Thank the hostile Palestinians and then the surrounding Arab states for that.


People living in an area for generations, don't just get up and leave when someone comes around and _*"asks them to".*_

That's one of the more ridiculous claims you fuckers make.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racist lies like this only breed more hatred of Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's treat the Pal's, like the Nazis treated the jews.
> 
> We've almost come full circle.
Click to expand...


OF course, Nazi comparisons is all you got

What a stupid and disgusting comparison.

Surprising coming from a retard like you? No, not at all, you're just parroting Palestinian propaganda, idiot


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant post!
> 
> Everyone like whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone=alles
Click to expand...


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> OF course, Nazi comparisons is all you got
> 
> What a stupid and disgusting comparison.
> 
> Surprising coming from a retard like you? No, not at all, you're just parroting Palestinian propaganda, idiot



Godwin's Rule is a very common Zionist tactic.  You would know.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's rich, coming from someone who spouts Palestinian bullshit all day long.
> 
> *If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?*
> 
> Thank the hostile Palestinians and then the surrounding Arab states for that.
> 
> 
> 
> People living in an area for generations, don't just get up and leave when someone comes around and _*"asks them to".*_
> 
> That's one of the more ridiculous claims you fuckers make.
Click to expand...


It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist


They were driven out by jewish terrorist groups who were massacring whole towns, like Deir Yassin.


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist



You're such a loser, telling everyone to "shut the fuck up" and "speak only when spoken to".  I really feel sorry for you.  You must be really really small on the inside and the outside.

The Palestinians wouldn't have been hostile if it wasn't for the Jews stealing their land and  demolishing their homes.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's rich, coming from someone who spouts Palestinian bullshit all day long.
> 
> If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?
> 
> Thank the hostile Palestinians and then the surrounding Arab states for that.
> 
> 
> 
> People living in an area for generations, don't just get up and leave when someone comes around and _"asks them to"._
> 
> That's one of the more ridiculous claims you fuckers make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist
Click to expand...

Don't let the little peckerwood get to ya, Toast...

Just ignore the little fucker...

He ain't worth it...

Neither is his recently acquired sidekick...


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a loser, telling everyone to "shut the fuck up" and "speak only when spoken to".  I really feel sorry for you.  You must be really really small on the inside and the outside.
> 
> The Palestinians wouldn't have been hostile if it wasn't for the Jews stealing their land and  demolishing their homes.
Click to expand...


Does that go for Billo Really too, who told me to shut the fuck up and to otherts as well several times??? Why did you ignore it when he said it ??

That's what I thought


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> OF course, Nazi comparisons is all you got
> 
> What a stupid and disgusting comparison.
> 
> Surprising coming from a retard like you? No, not at all, you're just parroting Palestinian propaganda, idiot


In this case, the comparisons are valid.

Are you trying to tell me Palestinian's:
 are not demonized at every turn?
are not treated like they're sub-human garbage?
are not blamed for all the problems in Israel?
 that any type of violence against them, is not acceptable?
 that they are not being ethnically cleansed from the area?
Because in order for it to be propaganda, none of the above can be true.

Now, is that what you are claiming?


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a loser, telling everyone to "shut the fuck up" and "speak only when spoken to".  I really feel sorry for you.  You must be really really small on the inside and the outside.
> 
> The Palestinians wouldn't have been hostile if it wasn't for the Jews stealing their land and  demolishing their homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that go for Billo Really too, who told me to shut the fuck up and to otherts as well several times??? Why did you ignore it when he said it ??
> 
> That's what I thought
Click to expand...

A minor oversight, I'm sure...

And if you believe that one, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn...


----------



## Billo_Really

Victory67 said:


> The Palestinians wouldn't have been hostile if it wasn't for the Jews stealing their land and  demolishing their homes.


This was confirmed by none other than a famous Zionists humanist living in that area at the time...


> _ "...the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. *They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination *...'
> -  *Ahad Ha'am* _


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Does that go for Billo Really too, who told me to shut the fuck up and to otherts as well several times???


That is a lie!

Now shut the fuck up!


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> A minor oversight, I'm sure...
> 
> And if you believe that one, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn...


You probably stole it from someone in Queens?


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A minor oversight, I'm sure... And if you believe that one, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably stole it from someone in Queens?
Click to expand...

No, but I did steal it _from_ a Queen - easiest heist I ever made... one of your kindred spirits, no doubt...


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Does that go for Billo Really too, who told me to shut the fuck up and to otherts as well several times??? Why did you ignore it when he said it ??
> 
> That's what I thought



Aww....need a tissue?

Its hypocrisy like yours which makes peace so hard in the Middle East.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, Nazi comparisons is all you got
> 
> What a stupid and disgusting comparison.
> 
> Surprising coming from a retard like you? No, not at all, you're just parroting Palestinian propaganda, idiot
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the comparisons are valid.
> 
> Are you trying to tell me Palestinian's:
> are not demonized at every turn?
> are not treated like they're sub-human garbage?
> are not blamed for all the problems in Israel?
> that any type of violence against them, is not acceptable?
> that they are not being ethnically cleansed from the area?
> Because in order for it to be propaganda, none of the above can be true.
> 
> Now, is that what you are claiming?
Click to expand...


What does all this have to do with Nazis ?? 

*are not demonized at every turn?*
Israelis (and in some cases Jews) are demonized not only by Palestinian civilians, but by their government. Ask if you want videos

*are not blamed for all the problems in Israel?* 
Uhh no, how did you come to that conclusion. Actually, it's the Palestinians who blame Israel for absolutely everything, and more.

*hat any type of violence against them, is not acceptable?*

Of course the Palestinians are not violent. No, they're very peaceful  

* that they are not being ethnically cleansed from the area?*

The goal of the country doing the Ethnic Cleansing is what? It's to get rid of the people they are cleansing. But the Palestinian population has been growing, not decreasing. 

Are Israelis throwing Palestinians in ovens or gas chambers? Are they forcing them to wear a star to identify them as Palestinians? Are they killing them by the hundreds of thousands? This list can go on and on. 

Like I said, Nazi comparisons are for people with no arguments, and on top of that, they are extremely insulting


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Like I said, Nazi comparisons are for people with no arguments, and on top of that, they are extremely insulting



Tissue?

Zionists are the ones who make the most Nazi comparisons.  

That's why peace is so hard to accomplish.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that go for Billo Really too, who told me to shut the fuck up and to otherts as well several times??? Why did you ignore it when he said it ??
> 
> That's what I thought
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww....need a tissue?
> 
> Its hypocrisy like yours which makes peace so hard in the Middle East.
Click to expand...


Of course it is. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy


----------



## Kondor3

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, Nazi comparisons are for people with no arguments, and on top of that, they are extremely insulting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue?
> 
> Zionists are the ones who make the most Nazi comparisons.
> 
> That's why peace is so hard to accomplish.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that's because the Palestinians stupidly furnish them with so much related material...


----------



## toastman

Funny how the pro - Palestinians compare Israel to Nazi Germany, when it is Hamas who's charter calls for the genocide of Jews , just Like Hitler's plan


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.
> 
> There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace."  Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce.  And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.
> 
> The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan.  Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view.  Our policy should be prefaced with the policy:  First - Do No Harm!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
Click to expand...






The only Israeli crimes are those in your ISLAMONAZI fantasy world. The Israelis removed all presence from gaza and the violence escalated, so making your words a LIE. The only thing that would stop the violence is the extinction of islam


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, what you just said proves just how incredibly brainwashed you are. You sound just like them LOL.
> 
> People like you will always excuse Jihad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
Click to expand...





What self defence would that be then, was it way back in 632C.E. when Mohamed started the genocide of the Jews. Or was it all the other attempts at ethnically cleansing the Jews from the face of the world. 

Now detail these alleged fantasy crimes and just what laws have been broken in your fantasy world.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.
> 
> There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace."  Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce.  And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.
> 
> The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan.  Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view.  Our policy should be prefaced with the policy:  First - Do No Harm!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only Israeli crimes are those in your ISLAMONAZI fantasy world. The Israelis removed all presence from gaza and the violence escalated, so making your words a LIE. The only thing that would stop the violence is the extinction of islam
Click to expand...


You believe every Israeli lie that comes down the pike.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> *Palestinians are violent by nature*. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nature?  That's a pretty racist thing to say.  I'd expect something like that from a Neo-Nazi or Klansman.
Click to expand...





Not really as the Koran sets it all out and details what every muslim MUST do. The Palestinians are all extremists that live to fight and die in the process. Every theatre of war today involves islam wanting to expand onto more land


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> *Palestinians are violent by nature*. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nature?  That's a pretty racist thing to say.  I'd expect something like that from a Neo-Nazi or Klansman.
Click to expand...






Not really as the Koran sets it all out and details what every muslim MUST do. The Palestinians are all extremists that live to fight and die in the process. Every theatre of war today involves islam wanting to expand onto more land


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, what you just said proves just how incredibly brainwashed you are. You sound just like them LOL.
> 
> People like you will always excuse Jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What self defence would that be then, was it way back in 632C.E. when Mohamed started the genocide of the Jews. Or was it all the other attempts at ethnically cleansing the Jews from the face of the world.
> 
> Now detail these alleged fantasy crimes and just what laws have been broken in your fantasy world.
Click to expand...


Just one example:

How many farmers in Gaza have been shot by Israel since they lied about leaving?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> 
> 
> How would you act if your neighborhood was occupied by a foreign army?
> 
> To go from a 2 minute walk to your neighborhood market, to an over 2 hour trek with no guarantee you'll be allowed access to the store?
> 
> What would you do in that situation?
Click to expand...






Now lets put it into its proper context shall we, the west bank and gaza were hostile to the Israeli's from 1948 and when Israel occupied the land in 1967 they took the measures outlined in the Geneva conventions to neutralise the hostility. All it takes is a commitment by the Palestinians to cease all belligerence and the measures would be removed. If your neighbours were firing rockets at your children would you not retaliate to the belligerence?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
Click to expand...






British American, French, Italian to name but a few of the people the Palestinians or their agents have murdered. Do you want reports from western journalists who were threatened with death by the Palestinians when they reported the truth.

 You need to start looking at all the reports and not just the ones that defend your islamonazi POV


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is silly for you to state that someone has "repressed homosexual hatred" when here you are, 18 years old and never kissed a girl.  Remember, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, you were the one who had told us under your previous appellation that you didn't party and don't date.  As far as racist hatred, I would think that the Arabs do a good job of that themselves.  Haven't you heard that the Presiden of the Sudan wants all Christians and Blacks out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> And Israeli's are trying to do the same thing to the indigenous, non-Jewish residents of that area.
> 
> It seems the only ones not actively trying to "wipe out" an entire population of people, are the Palestinian's.
Click to expand...





How about an unbiased report from a site with no links to islam proving your words, as the actual evidence shows a population growth in Palestine over and above that of the surrounding nations.

 Guess you did not do your homework again and have been left with egg on your face.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel hates the Palestinians so much, why did they put Israel inside Palestine?
> 
> Perhaps they should have looked for a friendlier place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was never a country of Palestine, just a territory, couldn't Israelis have part of that huge territory.  After all, they were there before the Arabs just like the early Christians were in the Middle East before the Arabs invaded.  And, let's face it, Mr. Tinmore, the Arabs hate the Israelis also.  It is killing them that one small dot on the map is being governed by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?
> 
> You are just spouting Israeli bullshit.
Click to expand...






What were the arab's doing in Jewish homes in the first place ?   Was it because they had stolen the property of the Jews because the Jews were better builders.

Remember the dhimmi and sharia laws that forbid non muslims from having better houses than the muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racist lies like this only breed more hatred of Jews.
Click to expand...




 What race are Palestinians then to make the comment racist, 

 Remember that Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have all had problems with the palestinians


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there was never a country of Palestine, just a territory, couldn't Israelis have part of that huge territory.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Next question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they were there before the Arabs just like the early Christians were in the Middle East before the Arabs invaded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the time Zionists declared Israel to be a sovereign state, jews made up only 10% of the population in that area.
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, let's face it, Mr. Tinmore, the Arabs hate the Israelis also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a direct result of Israeli aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is killing them that one small dot on the map is being governed by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not being governed by jews!
> 
> It's being governed by right-wing assholes, who think their shit don't stink.
Click to expand...





 1) so you would deny the Jews the right to self determination because of your ISLAMONAZI RACISM

 2) totally irrelevant as the arab muslims have only been there for 1400 years as migrants, the Jews have lived there for 3,500 years.

 3) no it is a direct result of the commands in the Koran that command all muslims to "KILL THE JEWs" after they refused to lay down and worship Mohamed the madman as god.

 4) it is and the muslims have been force fed hatred all their lives that the land is theirs and the Jews are inferior slaves.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
> 
> 
> 
> *Short List*
> 
> 1. Palestinians are violent to everyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant post!
> 
> Everyone like whom?
Click to expand...





 Well LIKE EVERYONE that comes into contact with them. The Jordanians for starters who showed them what would happen if they carried on trying to steal their land, 50,000 gunned down in 1 month


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racist lies like this only breed more hatred of Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's treat the Pal's, like the Nazis treated the jews.
> 
> We've almost come full circle.
Click to expand...



 So you can produce reports and pictures of the following things

 concentration camps

 Death camps

 Gas chambers

 Crematoria

 mass graves

 mass murders

 a 90% decline in the population


 OR ARE YPU JUST SPOUTING ISLAMONAZI LIES AGAIN


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...The Israelis removed all presence from gaza and the violence escalated..."
> 
> 
> 
> "_You believe every Israeli lie that comes down the pike._"
Click to expand...

What is the lie, Tinny?

That Israel evacuated Gaza?

Or that the violence escalated after that departure?

Or both?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's rich, coming from someone who spouts Palestinian bullshit all day long.
> 
> *If they were there before the Arabs, why did the Arabs have to be kicked out of their homes?*
> 
> Thank the hostile Palestinians and then the surrounding Arab states for that.
> 
> 
> 
> People living in an area for generations, don't just get up and leave when someone comes around and _*"asks them to".*_
> 
> That's one of the more ridiculous claims you fuckers make.
Click to expand...





If war was proposed for your area and the US army asked you to leave what would you do. 
 Knowing that the troops would kill anyone that moved and rape anything that was breathing

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iR5nDFhBL0&feature=player_embedded]Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, Nazi comparisons is all you got
> 
> What a stupid and disgusting comparison.
> 
> Surprising coming from a retard like you? No, not at all, you're just parroting Palestinian propaganda, idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godwin's Rule is a very common Zionist tactic.  You would know.
Click to expand...






KILL THE JEWS is law in islam, which is why you lot try and do it.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist
> 
> 
> 
> They were driven out by jewish terrorist groups who were massacring whole towns, like Deir Yassin.
Click to expand...





Wrong they were told to leave by the arab high command

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iR5nDFhBL0&feature=player_embedded]Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a claim you retard, you just don't know what you're talking about. So shut the fuck up you lying propagandist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a loser, telling everyone to "shut the fuck up" and "speak only when spoken to".  I really feel sorry for you.  You must be really really small on the inside and the outside.
> 
> The Palestinians wouldn't have been hostile if it wasn't for the Jews stealing their land and  demolishing their homes.
Click to expand...






So explain the command in the Koran that says KILL THE JEWS, and the history that shows the arabs stole Jewish land because it was better than arab, and then destroyed it with laziness.   How many times did the arabs steal Hebron from its Jewish owners after they bought it back.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, Nazi comparisons is all you got
> 
> What a stupid and disgusting comparison.
> 
> Surprising coming from a retard like you? No, not at all, you're just parroting Palestinian propaganda, idiot
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the comparisons are valid.
> 
> Are you trying to tell me Palestinian's:
> are not demonized at every turn?
> are not treated like they're sub-human garbage?
> are not blamed for all the problems in Israel?
> that any type of violence against them, is not acceptable?
> that they are not being ethnically cleansed from the area?
> Because in order for it to be propaganda, none of the above can be true.
> 
> Now, is that what you are claiming?
Click to expand...






 NO

 NO

 NO

 NO

 NO


 Unless you can produce reliable accounts of all of the above of course to prove your ISLAMONAZI POV


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians wouldn't have been hostile if it wasn't for the Jews stealing their land and  demolishing their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> This was confirmed by none other than a famous Zionists humanist living in that area at the time...
> 
> 
> 
> _ "...the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. *They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination *...'
> -  *Ahad Ha'am* _
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 And countered by the command in the Koran that calls on all muslims TO KILL THE JEWS


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Unless you can produce reliable accounts of all of the above of course to prove your ISLAMONAZI POV


You're the kind of person who'd argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> And countered by the command in the Koran that calls on all muslims TO KILL THE JEWS


Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs both lived in that area for generations with no major incidents of violence, until the Zionist migration.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> So you can produce reports and pictures of the following things
> 
> concentration camps
> 
> Death camps
> 
> Gas chambers
> 
> Crematoria
> 
> mass graves
> 
> mass murders
> 
> a 90% decline in the population
> 
> 
> OR ARE YPU JUST SPOUTING ISLAMONAZI LIES AGAIN


I didn't say it was the Holocaust, I merely said there were similarities.

BTW, the Holocaust didn't just happen over night.  There were many years  hatred of jews was ramping up and nobody said anything about it, which eventually led to the unthinkable.  That's the stage we are seeing in Palestine now.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only Israeli crimes are those in your ISLAMONAZI fantasy world. The Israelis removed all presence from gaza and the violence escalated, so making your words a LIE. The only thing that would stop the violence is the extinction of islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe every Israeli lie that comes down the pike.
Click to expand...





 WRONG AGAIN TINNY I can see the truth every day all around the world in regards to islam. The evidence is overwhelming against the Palestinians when you see such things as pallywood and the LIES coming out of gaza. Can you remember when hamas shot themselves in both feet when they listed the movements of "civilians" killed by Israel.  One stood out above the rest as it was a hamas terrorist on his way to fight Israel, another was a boy of 15 killed when he was dismantling a rocket launcher to move it to another location.  

 Care to discuss the words in the Koran that COMMAND THE PALESTINIANS TO KILL THE JEWS.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What self defence would that be then, was it way back in 632C.E. when Mohamed started the genocide of the Jews. Or was it all the other attempts at ethnically cleansing the Jews from the face of the world.
> 
> Now detail these alleged fantasy crimes and just what laws have been broken in your fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one example:
> 
> How many farmers in Gaza have been shot by Israel since they lied about leaving?
Click to expand...






 None as they were not farmers but terrorists wanting to plant bombs in no mans land


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> 1) so you would deny the Jews the right to self determination because of your ISLAMONAZI RACISM


Everyone has the right to self determination, as long as you don't impinge the same right of others.

Nice strawman, though.




Phoenall said:


> 2) totally irrelevant as the arab muslims have only been there for 1400 years as migrants, the Jews have lived there for 3,500 years.


Arabs have lived there just as long.  

In fact, Palestinian-arabs are the direct decendents of the Israelites.




Phoenall said:


> 3) no it is a direct result of the commands in the Koran that command all muslims to "KILL THE JEWs" after they refused to lay down and worship Mohamed the madman as god.


So you're saying the bombs you drop on their houses, all the children of theirs you murder and all the land of theirs you seize, doesn't piss them off more than some random words in a book?

How convenient?




Phoenall said:


> 4) it is and the muslims have been force fed hatred all their lives that the land is theirs and the Jews are inferior slaves.


All of your posts say the opposite is true.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Unless you can produce reliable accounts of all of the above of course to prove your ISLAMONAZI POV
> 
> 
> 
> You're the kind of person who'd argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.
Click to expand...





Wrong as I argue that gravity makes planes crash. Just as I argue that Israel is not doing what the islamonazis claim they are


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> If war was proposed for your area and the US army asked you to leave what would you do.
> Knowing that the troops would kill anyone that moved and rape anything that was breathing
> 
> Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War - YouTube


I'd do the same thing you would do....

....kill anyone who came near my home.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Wrong they were told to leave by the arab high command
> 
> Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War - YouTube


That's just bullshit propaganda on your part.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And countered by the command in the Koran that calls on all muslims TO KILL THE JEWS
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs both lived in that area for generations with no major incidents of violence, until the Zionist migration.
Click to expand...





Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual







Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948

 "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
How many times have you heard this said?

We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.

To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.

As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> None as they were not farmers but terrorists wanting to plant bombs in no mans land


Does this look like they're planting bombs?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD6brPWL1rA]Free Palestine Israeli Soldiers Shoot Palestinian Farmer - Bürgerinitiative für Frieden in Syrien - YouTube[/ame]


BTW, Israel has no jurisdiction in "no mans land".

That's not Israel!


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."


Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall.

What do you have to say about the over 400 jews who's lives were saved by their arab neighbors during those riots?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can produce reports and pictures of the following things
> 
> concentration camps
> 
> Death camps
> 
> Gas chambers
> 
> Crematoria
> 
> mass graves
> 
> mass murders
> 
> a 90% decline in the population
> 
> 
> OR ARE YPU JUST SPOUTING ISLAMONAZI LIES AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was the Holocaust, I merely said there were similarities.
> 
> BTW, the Holocaust didn't just happen over night.  There were many years  hatred of jews was ramping up and nobody said anything about it, which eventually led to the unthinkable.  That's the stage we are seeing in Palestine now.
Click to expand...





You stated that the Jews were treating the Palestinians as bad as the Germans treated the Jew during WW2, WELL WW2 lasted just 6 years and the Germans are alleged to have murdered over 12 million people in that time. The Jews have had 65 years and have managed to only kill 20,000 terrorists during that time, and much less in the last 47 years they have occupied the west bank. In fact Jordan has murdered more Palestinians inone month that Israel has in 65 years.

 So there are no similarities at all are there, no actual mass murders or pogroms just Israel defending itself from attack. How many Palestinians did the USA kill during both Gulf wars ?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) so you would deny the Jews the right to self determination because of your ISLAMONAZI RACISM
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has the right to self determination, as long as you don't impinge the same right of others.
> 
> Nice strawman, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) totally irrelevant as the arab muslims have only been there for 1400 years as migrants, the Jews have lived there for 3,500 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs have lived there just as long.
> 
> In fact, Palestinian-arabs are the direct decendents of the Israelites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) no it is a direct result of the commands in the Koran that command all muslims to "KILL THE JEWs" after they refused to lay down and worship Mohamed the madman as god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the bombs you drop on their houses, all the children of theirs you murder and all the land of theirs you seize, doesn't piss them off more than some random words in a book?
> 
> How convenient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) it is and the muslims have been force fed hatred all their lives that the land is theirs and the Jews are inferior slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of your posts say the opposite is true.
Click to expand...




 1) and you still want to remove all of Israel's rights and deny them the basic freedom of defence against hostile action

 2) Not according to DNA tests that show most Palestinian arabs are from other nations around the M.E. If they were descended from Jews they would have one of two genetic markers and be missing one genetic marker all together. But they show no sign of either Jewish genetic markers and have the one Arabic genetic marker.

  3) NO as the hate was already inbuilt in their psyche from the time of Mohamed the mad. He declared war on every Jew when the one tribe refused to fall down and worship him in medina. Since that day no Jew has been safe in any muslim majority nation, and this is shown in the history of mass murders throughout time of Jews by muslims.

 4) No all my posts say the same thing, that it is islam that is the problem and the muslims have been fed hatred all their lives. I live with Islamic hatred every day and can see how it completely takes over their lives. Friday afternoons are the worst when the imams preach the filth and violence that they are told to so that their "flock" gets all worked up and agitated.  Wait until an Islamic doctor tries to mass murder thousands of children at one of your Airports.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If war was proposed for your area and the US army asked you to leave what would you do.
> Knowing that the troops would kill anyone that moved and rape anything that was breathing
> 
> Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> I'd do the same thing you would do....
> 
> ....kill anyone who came near my home.
Click to expand...




The difference is I cant have any weapons by law so I would have to move to keep my family safe. That is what the arab Palestinians did in 1948, and were left out to dry by their own people


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong they were told to leave by the arab high command
> 
> Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> That's just bullshit propaganda on your part.
Click to expand...





No it is a de facto interview with a Palestinian in the refugee camps, and you don't like it because it proves you are wrong.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> None as they were not farmers but terrorists wanting to plant bombs in no mans land
> 
> 
> 
> Does this look like they're planting bombs?
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD6brPWL1rA]Free Palestine Israeli Soldiers Shoot Palestinian Farmer - Bürgerinitiative für Frieden in Syrien - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> BTW, Israel has no jurisdiction in "no mans land".
> 
> That's not Israel!
Click to expand...






Guess what your video is inconclusive as it shows nothing. It does not show muzzle flashes from the Israeli marksmen, the alleged dead show no wounds or evidence of blood. And the grenade launchers that you hear do not deliver any grenades.  Just another pallywood production for the benefit of you ISLAMONAZI stooges


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall.
> 
> What do you have to say about the over 400 jews who's lives were saved by their arab neighbors during those riots?
Click to expand...





 What about the 3 times before that when the muslims massacred the Jews in Hebron, and took their houses and property. As for the 1929 riots you and your source LIE like a cheap rug

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The 1929 Palestine riots, also known as the Western Wall Uprising, the 1929 Massacres, (Hebrew: &#1502;&#1488;&#1493;&#1512;&#1506;&#1493;&#1514; &#1514;&#1512;&#1508;"&#1496;, Meora'ot Tarpat, lit. Events of 5689 Anno Mundi), or the Buraq Uprising (Arabic: &#1579;&#1608;&#1585;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1576;&#1585;&#1575;&#1602;*), refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence. The riots took the form in the most part of attacks by Arabs on Jews accompanied by destruction of Jewish property. During the week of riots from 23 to 29 August 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured, while 110 Arabs were killed and 232 were injured, many by British police while trying to suppress the riots.

 Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem distributed leaflets to Arabs in Palestine and throughout the Arab world which claimed that the Jews were planning to take over the al-Aqsa Mosque.[14] The leaflet stated that the Government was "responsible for any consequences of any measures which the Moslems may adopt for the purpose of defending the holy Burak themselves in the event of the failure of the Governmentto prevent any such intrusion on the part of the Jews." 

 So you see it was another of your ISLAMONAZI blood libels.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> "...Palestinian-arabs are the direct decendents of the Israelites..."



Correct, in part.

In truth, the Palestinians are 'mutts' - admixtures of several strong ethno-genetic strains, as are a great many 'peoples' of the earth; especially those living in regions with an extremely long history of conquest and 'turnover'... like Israel-Palestine... the land-bridge between Asia and Africa... rather like setting-up your living room in the open air in the middle of an eight-lane superhighway.

In their (the Palestinians) case, they are descended in part from the Hebrew-Israelites, in large part from the nearby Arab-Bedouin tribes, in part from Samaritans, in part from Persians, in part from Turkic stock, in part from Mongol or steppe-peoples stock, in part from European (Alexandrian Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and medieval Crusader Anglo-Saxon-Nordic-Frankish-Germanic) stock, in part from Egyptian and Ethiopian stock, and so on; much of that admixture occurring during Recorded History, and much of that since the bloody conquest and theft of those lands by the Arabs in the 7th and 8th centuries A.D.

In connection with their Jewish ancestry, it may be reasonably construed that they are the descendants of the weak, and traitors to the Jewish faith, surrendering to Islam in spirit as well as politically or militarily, unwilling to suffer Dhimmitude; the sort that would rather switch than fight (or resist, in a religious-spiritual sense).

Ditto for the few drops of Euro-Christian or Greek-Byzantine-Christian blood in them; those ancestors also apparently would rather switch than fight (or resist, in a religious-spiritual sense).

No _wonder_ the Palestinians undertook the *Big Skeddadle of 1948*, and ran from danger and would not stand their ground for their lands and homes, and no _wonder_ they position rocket-launchers and mortars and militia units and other war-assets amongst their civilian populations; hiding behind the skirts of their women-folk and children.

They're descended in-part from a long line of quitters and danger-shirkers and cavers-in and surrender monkeys and outright cowards; complacent and content to live in stagnation and squalor prior to The Troubles, oblivious of both their local heritage and the shameful behaviors of many of their ancestors; quarrelsome and intransigent and petulant and troublesome ankle-biters.

Apparently, cowardly bloodlines and cowardly history yield cowardly present-day collective behavioral manifestations - like their militias hiding behind the skirts of their women-folk and children.

Nowwwwwww I get it... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







*========================================

DNA and genetic studies*

...In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians &#8211; and in some cases other Levantines &#8211; are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans.

One DNA study by Nebel found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD". They also found substantial genetic overlap between Muslim Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, though with some significant differences that might be explainable by the geographical isolation of the Jews and by immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.

In a genetic study of Y-chromosomal STRs in two populations from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area: Christian and Muslim Palestinians showed genetic differences. The majority of Palestinian Christians (31.82%) were a subclade of E1b1b, followed by G2a (11.36%), and J1 (9.09%). The majority of Palestinian Muslims were haplogroup J1 (37.82%) followed by E1b1b (19.33%), and T (5.88%). The study sample consisted of 44 Palestinian Christians and 119 Palestinian Muslims.

In a 2003 genetic study, Bedouins showed the highest rates (62.5%) of the subclade Haplogroup J-M267 among all populations tested, followed by Palestinian Arabs (38.4%), Iraqis (28.2%), Ashkenazi Jews (14.6%) and Sephardic Jews (11.9%), according to Semino et al.[112] Semitic populations, including Jews, usually possess an excess of J1 Y chromosomes compared to other populations harboring Y-haplogroup J.

According to a 2011 study by Balanovsky et al., Haplogroup J-M267 is actually most populous in the Northeastern Caucasus region of Dagestan with the highest frequency in Kubachi (99%), followed by Kaitak (85%), and Dargins (69%).

The haplogroup J1, the ancestor of subclade M267, originates south of the Levant and was first disseminated from there into Ethiopia and Europe in Neolithic times. In Jewish populations, J1 has a rate of around 15%, with haplogroup J2 (M172) (of eight sub-Haplogroups) being almost twice as common as J1 among Jews (<29%). J1 is most common in the southern Levant, as well as Syria, Iraq, Algeria, and Arabia, and drops sharply at the border of non-semitic areas like Turkey and Iran. A second diffusion of the J1 marker took place in the 7th century CE when Arabians brought it from Arabia to North Africa.

Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) includes the modal haplotype of the Galilee Arabs and of Moroccan Arabs[118] and the sister Modal Haplotype of the Cohanim, the "Cohan Modale Haplotype", representing the descendents of the priestly caste Aaron. J2 is known to be related to the ancient Greek movements and is found mainly in Europe and the central Mediterranean (Italy, the Balkans, Greece).

According to a 2010 study by Behar et al. titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people", some Palestinians tested clustered genetically close to Bedouins, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians which could indicate a common ancestry or some recent ancestral influx from the Arabian Peninsula.

A study found that the Palestinians, like Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis, Turks, and Kurds have what appears to be Female-Mediated gene flow in the form of Maternal DNA Haplogroups from Sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 117 Palestinian individuals tested, 15 carried maternal haplogroups that originated in Sub-Saharan Africa. These results are consistent with female migration from eastern Africa into Near Eastern communities within the last few thousand years. There have been many opportunities for such migrations during this period. However, the most likely explanation for the presence of predominantly female lineages of African origin in these areas is that they may trace back to women brought from Africa as part of the Arab slave trade, assimilated into the areas under Arab rule as a result of miscegenation and manumission.

According to a 2002 study by Nebel et al. titled "Genetic Evidence for the Expansion of Arabian Tribes", the highest frequency of Eu10 (i.e. J1) (30%&#8211;62.5%) has been observed so far in various Muslim Arab populations in the Middle East.[124][125] The term "Arab", as well as the presence of Arabs in the Syrian Desert and the Fertile Crescent, is first seen in the Assyrian sources from the 9th century BCE (Eph'al 1984).

A 2013 study of Haber and et al. found that "The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen." The authors explained that "religious affiliation had a strong impact on the genomes of the Levantines. In particular, conversion of the region's populations to Islam appears to have introduced major rearrangements in populations' relations through admixture with culturally similar but geographically remote populations leading to genetic similarities between remarkably distant populations." The authors also reconstructed the genetic structure of pre-Islamic Levant and found that "it was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners."

Arabian origins of local Bedouin

The local Bedouins of Palestine originate from the Arabian Peninsula and speak a distinct variety of Arabic. Arabic onomastic elements began to appear in Edomite inscriptions starting in the 6th century BC and the inscriptions of the Nabataeans who arrived in today&#8217;s Jordan in the 4th-3rd centuries BC.

A few Bedouin are found as far north as Galilee; however, these seem to be much later arrival, rather than descendants of the Arabs that Sargon II settled in Samaria in 720 BC. The term "Arab", as well as the presence of Arabs in the Syrian Desert and the Fertile Crescent, is first seen in the Assyrian sources from the 9th century BCE (Eph'al 1984).

Following the Muslim conquest of the Levant by the Arab Muslim Rashiduns, the formerly dominant languages of the area, Aramaic and Greek, were replaced by the Arabic language introduced by the new conquering administrative minority.[130] Among the cultural survivals from pre-Islamic times are the significant Palestinian Christian community, and smaller Jewish and Samaritan ones, as well as an Aramaic and possibly Hebrew sub-stratum in the local Palestinian Arabic dialect.

Samaritan descent in Nablus

Much of the local Palestinian population in Nablus is believed to be descended from Samaritans who converted to Islam. Even today, certain Nabulsi surnames including Muslimani, Yaish, and Shakshir among others, are associated with a Samaritan origin.

...

Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands._"
> 
> 
> 
> No. In the final analysis, Israel just wants the goddamned Palestinians gone and out of their hair.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Israel hates the Palestinians so much, why did they put Israel inside Palestine?
> 
> Perhaps they should have looked for a friendlier place.
Click to expand...

Nahhhhh... they'll just take yours... and that task is nearing completion, according to the Palestinians' own propaganda maps of shrinking lands.

Feel free to stop 'em if you can... and if you dare... you'll get very little help from the outside... not even your Arab neighbors.

But hurry... time's running out... in another 10 years, the Palestinians will be stacked five-high on each others' shoulders... like angels or demons on the head of a pin.

The ones that haven't skeddadled to Jordan or Lebanon or Egypt or emigrated out of the region entirely by then, as this game-clock winds down.

Far better for the Palestinians to face Reality, pack up their families, and slip away in the night, one family at a time, rather than to stay where they're so obviously not wanted...

And where 66 years of intermittent squabbling and posturing have resulted in no more than a '_non-member observer-stat_e' status at the United Nations for the handful of disconnected, postage-stamp -sized patches of land which constitute Rump Palestine - what's left of it, anyway.

Rump Palestine will die quickly enough as a pseudo-polity and stillborn state-that-never-was.

No point in hanging-around until they turn of the lights.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> 1) and you still want to remove all of Israel's rights and deny them the basic freedom of defence against hostile action
> 
> 2) Not according to DNA tests that show most Palestinian arabs are from other nations around the M.E. If they were descended from Jews they would have one of two genetic markers and be missing one genetic marker all together. But they show no sign of either Jewish genetic markers and have the one Arabic genetic marker.



I know you're an Israeli but do you really have to lie so much??????

There is no genetic evidence that says that the Palestinians are from other nations.  There is no "Jewish" genetic markers.  You're just making shit up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And countered by the command in the Koran that calls on all muslims TO KILL THE JEWS
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs both lived in that area for generations with no major incidents of violence, until the Zionist migration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
Click to expand...


I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:

Safed - 1834, 1929
Jaffa - 1921
Jerusalem - 1929
Hebron - 1518, 1929

And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

That leaves:

Safed - 1834
Hebron - 1518

Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall.
> 
> What do you have to say about the over 400 jews who's lives were saved by their arab neighbors during those riots?
Click to expand...



Read what you just said . "Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall."

Even if that were true, are you saying that's a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children ??

BTW, that wasn't the only reason: *The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places*


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall.
> 
> What do you have to say about the over 400 jews who's lives were saved by their arab neighbors during those riots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read what you just said . "Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall."
> 
> Even if that were true, are you saying that's a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children ??
Click to expand...


Perhaps it looks like that taken as an isolated event. But if you look at it in context it makes more sense.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs both lived in that area for generations with no major incidents of violence, until the Zionist migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
Click to expand...


Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !

There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
Click to expand...


Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
Click to expand...

Tinmore, read what this Jordanian Sheikh has to say about Israel.  *Published today.*


Sheikh Ahmed Aladoan of Amman, a member of Jordans well-known Adwan tribe, posted to Facebook this week that there is no such place as Palestine, and provided references from the Koran to back up his assertion.

One of the Koranic verses provided states that Allah gave the Holy Land to the sons of Israel until the Day of Judgment (Surah Al-Maida, verse 21), and the other (Surah Al-Sharaa, verse 59) says that the land was bequeathed to the Jews.

The sheikh turned to those who distort the words of the Koran, whom he labeled as liars, and questioned where they had even come up with the name Palestine. He insisted their claims to the Land of Israel were forfeit because Allah is the protector of the Children of Israel.


Jordanian Sheikh: Israel Belongs to the Jews! - Israel Today | Israel News


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?



many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not Bi-polar at all, but I do take medication for diabetes, heart disease, emphysema and A-fib. Guess what most is from Israel because it is good quality at a low price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder you're so angry!  You obviously take out all your frustration over your obesity and poor genetics at the Arabs who of course are not responsible for your failed body.
> 
> Its attitudes like this that make it hard to achieve peace.  Israelis misplacing their anger upon the wrong people.
Click to expand...





All my medical conditions are as a result of working in a very dirty and hot environment, with no set breaks for meals.  So don't even think about going into the medical profession as you would fail the first year exams.
 The people with the worst genetics are the muslims who close breed so often that they produce the worlds highest number of genetic mutations, and they blame the Jews for them.
 By the way I am not an Israeli, I am not even a Jew I am a British Christian that sees the evil muslims for what they are. And we in Britain are looking at ways to repatriate the muslims as soon as we can they are that much of a strain on our limited resources.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.
Click to expand...


And besides, Britain's immigration policy was in direct opposition to the will of the people. This was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant, and the Palestinian's right to self determination.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) and you still want to remove all of Israel's rights and deny them the basic freedom of defence against hostile action
> 
> 2) Not according to DNA tests that show most Palestinian arabs are from other nations around the M.E. If they were descended from Jews they would have one of two genetic markers and be missing one genetic marker all together. But they show no sign of either Jewish genetic markers and have the one Arabic genetic marker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're an Israeli but do you really have to lie so much??????
> 
> There is no genetic evidence that says that the Palestinians are from other nations.  There is no "Jewish" genetic markers.  You're just making shit up.
Click to expand...






Maybe you should learn to read English as I am not even a Jew.

 The evidence has been provided that shows the Jews are distinct from the arabs by a long way. The arabs have a faulty gene that makes them liable to sickle cell anaemia, something they used as a blood libel against the Jews claiming it as a result of poor diet. SCUM ISLAMONAZIS denied the findings of the doctors because it took away another BLOOD LIBEL that caused aqnger in the Palestinian population.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-jews and Palestinian-arabs both lived in that area for generations with no major incidents of violence, until the Zionist migration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
Click to expand...





Try again tinny as the massacres were all over the world and have been documented. It shows that the hatred for the Jews was around since the 7C massacre in medina


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall.
> 
> What do you have to say about the over 400 jews who's lives were saved by their arab neighbors during those riots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what you just said . "Zionists started the Hebron Massacre when they went down and declared sole possession of the Wailing Wall."
> 
> Even if that were true, are you saying that's a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps it looks like that taken as an isolated event. But if you look at it in context it makes more sense.
Click to expand...





 And what does unbiased history say, other than the Grand Mufti distributed pamphlets telling the Palestinians that the Jews were stealing the western wall.   Yet another islamonazi BLOOD LIBEL


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebron the Jews massacred and the houses taken over by arabs, not once but 4 times. Here is a map of Islamic atrocities against the Jews prior to 1948, this is factual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: Massacres of Jews by Muslims before 1948
> 
> "Jews lived happily together with Muslims and in harmony before Israel was established."
> How many times have you heard this said?
> 
> We are indebted to Torbjorn Karfunkel, who has blown the myth of peaceful coexistence sky-high with his pre-1948 'massacre map' of Jews by Muslims (click on the map to enlarge). The map should not be considered exhaustive, but it does go back to the 7th century, when Mohammed's followers massacred Jewish tribes in Arabia. It reminds us that Jews were murdered in Spain in 1066, in spite of the 'Andalusian Golden Age'. The cluster of explosive dots over Morocco recalls that relationships between Jews and Muslims during the 19th century were not always plain sailing.
> 
> To this 'massacre map' one might add the blood libels which spread like wildfire across the Ottoman empire, often resulting not in massacres, but in individuals arrested, tortured and unfairly accused.
> 
> As the great Tunisian-Jewish writer Albert Memmi has written: "coexistence with the Arabs was not just uncomfortable, it was marked by threats periodically carried out."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again tinny as the massacres were all over the world and have been documented. It shows that the hatred for the Jews was around since the 7C massacre in medina
Click to expand...


OK, but this is the Israel and Palestine forum.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
Click to expand...





 So how about the foreign arabs that invaded Palestine not once but 5 times in total. What does it make them ?


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.
Click to expand...





And the ISLAMONAZIS weren't, just as they weren't illegal immigrants in every country in the world.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And besides, Britain's immigration policy was in direct opposition to the will of the people. This was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant, and the Palestinian's right to self determination.
Click to expand...






Actually it wasn't it was as a direct result of the mandate that Britain was able to offer the muslims 98% OF THE LAND OF PALESTINE and Israel just 2%. Only to be taken away and a new offer of 1% made instead.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how about the foreign arabs that invaded Palestine not once but 5 times in total. What does it make them ?
Click to expand...


When was that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, Britain's immigration policy was in direct opposition to the will of the people. This was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant, and the Palestinian's right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it wasn't it was as a direct result of the mandate that Britain was able to offer the muslims 98% OF THE LAND OF PALESTINE and Israel just 2%. Only to be taken away and a new offer of 1% made instead.
Click to expand...


Being appointed as a mandate did not authorize them to violate the law.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was looking at your map. Since we are talking about Palestine there is:
> 
> Safed - 1834, 1929
> Jaffa - 1921
> Jerusalem - 1929
> Hebron - 1518, 1929
> 
> And we are talking about before the Zionist invasion I will use 1917 for the dividing line. That is when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.
> 
> That leaves:
> 
> Safed - 1834
> Hebron - 1518
> 
> Take that for what it is worth. It is your information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
Click to expand...


Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. 

And again, there was no Palestinian country to take over. Doesn't matter how many times you say it , but there was no Palestinian state at the time. 
For fucks sake, you don't even know WHEN Palestine became a country


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And besides, Britain's immigration policy was in direct opposition to the will of the people. *This was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant*, and the Palestinian's right to self determination.
Click to expand...


Can you quote the part of the League of Nations Covenant that Britain violated when they invited the Zionists?


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.



Many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants into Palestine.

The British had a strict Jew immigration quota and their numbers coming in greatly exceeded that.


----------



## toastman

Victory67 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants into Palestine.
> 
> The British had a strict Jew immigration quota and their numbers coming in greatly exceeded that.
Click to expand...


Ashkenazis lol. Way to flush your credibility down the drain. 

No one here cares what trolls like you have to say, why don't you go troll somewhere else ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist invasion LOL. You are such an expert in Palestinian propaganda !
> 
> There was no invasion. The Zionist were invited by the British, the same British who ruled the land. There immigration was also fascilitated by the British. How is that an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
> 
> And again, there was no Palestinian country to take over. Doesn't matter how many times you say it , but there was no Palestinian state at the time.
> For fucks sake, you don't even know WHEN Palestine became a country
Click to expand...


What does the Palestine Mandate say?



> ...in any other* country*;...
> 
> ... national home in that *country*;...
> 
> ... for placing the* country* ...
> 
> ...to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> ... interests of the community in connection with the development of the *country*,...
> 
> ... the natural resources of the *country*...
> 
> ...appropriate to the needs of the *country*,...
> 
> ... develop any of the natural resources of the* country*,...
> 
> ...for the benefit of the *country*...
> 
> ...for the defence of the *country*,...
> 
> ... natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population...
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country*...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## Victory67

toastman said:


> Ashkenazis lol. Way to flush your credibility down the drain.
> 
> No one here cares what trolls like you have to say, why don't you go troll somewhere else ?



Sorry, are many Jews not known as Ashkenazi?  I didn't make this term up.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
> 
> And again, there was no Palestinian country to take over. Doesn't matter how many times you say it , but there was no Palestinian state at the time.
> For fucks sake, you don't even know WHEN Palestine became a country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Palestine Mandate say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in any other* country*;...
> 
> ... national home in that *country*;...
> 
> ... for placing the* country* ...
> 
> ...to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> ... interests of the community in connection with the development of the *country*,...
> 
> ... the natural resources of the *country*...
> 
> ...appropriate to the needs of the *country*,...
> 
> ... develop any of the natural resources of the* country*,...
> 
> ...for the benefit of the *country*...
> 
> ...for the defence of the *country*,...
> 
> ... natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population...
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country*...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


'Palestine' became a country in 1988 Tinmore. You need to revise your history

First you say Palestine became a country in 1924. Then you say they declared independence in 1948. You have no clue what you're talking about


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, Britain's immigration policy was in direct opposition to the will of the people. *This was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant*, and the Palestinian's right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you quote the part of the League of Nations Covenant that Britain violated when they invited the Zionists?
Click to expand...


*ARTICLE 22.*

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. 

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, Britain's immigration policy was in direct opposition to the will of the people. *This was a violation of the League of Nations Covenant*, and the Palestinian's right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote the part of the League of Nations Covenant that Britain violated when they invited the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Click to expand...


How did I know you would quote something that doesnt answer my question. Theres nothing in there about Britain not being allowed to assist immigration. 

Fail.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore;  _et al,_

Hummm, what law did they violate?



P F Tinmore said:


> Being appointed as a mandate did not authorize them to violate the law.


_*(QUESTION)*_

Who wrote the law?

Did the plaintive take it before the International Court of Justice?

What government was involved?

Who had legislative (law making powers) and administration of Palestine at the time?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote the part of the League of Nations Covenant that Britain violated when they invited the Zionists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did I know you would quote something that doesnt answer my question. Theres nothing in there about Britain not being allowed to assist immigration.
> 
> Fail.
Click to expand...


*Nothing ever answers your question.*

If my answer is not the one you want, you disregard it.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust* of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know you would quote something that doesnt answer my question. Theres nothing in there about Britain not being allowed to assist immigration.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nothing ever answers your question.*
> 
> If my answer is not the one you want, you disregard it.
Click to expand...


I asked you to show me where in the League of Covenants does it say that Britain was in violation when they invited and assisted in the immigration of the European Jews.
You absolutely did not answer that. Anyone can see that


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know you would quote something that doesnt answer my question. Theres nothing in there about Britain not being allowed to assist immigration.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing ever answers your question.*
> 
> If my answer is not the one you want, you disregard it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you to show me where in the League of Covenants does it say that Britain was in violation when they invited and assisted in the immigration of the European Jews.
> You absolutely did not answer that. Anyone can see that
Click to expand...

It's like, if you ask Tinmore for today's stock quotes, he gives you yesterday's baseball scores.


----------



## Sally

toastman said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the AshkeNAZIS were illegal immigrants into Palestine.
> 
> The British had a strict Jew immigration quota and their numbers coming in greatly exceeded that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashkenazis lol. Way to flush your credibility down the drain.
> 
> No one here cares what trolls like you have to say, why don't you go troll somewhere else ?
Click to expand...


It's amusing to see this Arab capitalize NAZIs when he posts Ashkennazis since it is his own brethren are are murdering people en masse in the Middle East just like the Nazis did.  Meanwhile, I wonder what would have happened years ago  if those Jews living in Israel could have gotten people from other lands to work for them, just the way they are doing today along with the rich oil countries in the Middle East.  They could have turned these illegals Arabs away and told them to go back to their own poor surrounding countries and figure out how to  support themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know you would quote something that doesnt answer my question. Theres nothing in there about Britain not being allowed to assist immigration.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing ever answers your question.*
> 
> If my answer is not the one you want, you disregard it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you to show me where in the League of Covenants does it say that Britain was in violation when they invited and assisted in the immigration of the European Jews.
> You absolutely did not answer that. Anyone can see that
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing ever answers your question.*
> 
> If my answer is not the one you want, you disregard it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to show me where in the League of Covenants does it say that Britain was in violation when they invited and assisted in the immigration of the European Jews.
> You absolutely did not answer that. Anyone can see that
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against self defense?
> 
> Israel wants to keep its crimes and violence while the Palestinians are to sit on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
Click to expand...


Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, terrorism around the world from hijackings to bombings


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Self Defense".
> 
> HAHAHAHA ! Now THAT'S funny
> 
> Palestinians are violent by nature. The fact that you think the violence will stop once a peace deal is reached shows you either know nothing about PAlestinians or you are one of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, terrorism around the world from hijackings to bombings
Click to expand...


Links?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners colluding with other foreigners to take over your country is not an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
> 
> And again, there was no Palestinian country to take over. Doesn't matter how many times you say it , but there was no Palestinian state at the time.
> For fucks sake, you don't even know WHEN Palestine became a country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Palestine Mandate say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in any other* country*;...
> 
> ... national home in that *country*;...
> 
> ... for placing the* country* ...
> 
> ...to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> ... interests of the community in connection with the development of the *country*,...
> 
> ... the natural resources of the *country*...
> 
> ...appropriate to the needs of the *country*,...
> 
> ... develop any of the natural resources of the* country*,...
> 
> ...for the benefit of the *country*...
> 
> ...for the defence of the *country*,...
> 
> ... natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population...
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country*...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They use "country" here to describe the region the way some folks will use "Kleenex" to generically describe any ol' facial tissue... doesn't mean that it's actually Kleenex, though.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, terrorism around the world from hijackings to bombings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p4uFd-_NFwwz3oxXQ&sig2=F8506VctuijxFcRWYUv0cA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...X-IyUwRhdA0DUqSww&sig2=HXP0Jk9Ig5ZYf7uC_E1dhQ
The New Generation of Jordanian Jihadi Fighters - Sada
Plots against Army emerge in Ain al-Hilweh | News , Lebanon News | THE DAILY STAR


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, terrorism around the world from hijackings to bombings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p4uFd-_NFwwz3oxXQ&sig2=F8506VctuijxFcRWYUv0cA
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...X-IyUwRhdA0DUqSww&sig2=HXP0Jk9Ig5ZYf7uC_E1dhQ
> The New Generation of Jordanian Jihadi Fighters - Sada
> Plots against Army emerge in Ain al-Hilweh | News , Lebanon News | THE DAILY STAR
Click to expand...


Did you even read those links before you posted them?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p4uFd-_NFwwz3oxXQ&sig2=F8506VctuijxFcRWYUv0cA
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...X-IyUwRhdA0DUqSww&sig2=HXP0Jk9Ig5ZYf7uC_E1dhQ
> The New Generation of Jordanian Jihadi Fighters - Sada
> Plots against Army emerge in Ain al-Hilweh | News , Lebanon News | THE DAILY STAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read those links before you posted them?
Click to expand...






 Did you..................


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p4uFd-_NFwwz3oxXQ&sig2=F8506VctuijxFcRWYUv0cA
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...X-IyUwRhdA0DUqSww&sig2=HXP0Jk9Ig5ZYf7uC_E1dhQ
> The New Generation of Jordanian Jihadi Fighters - Sada
> Plots against Army emerge in Ain al-Hilweh | News , Lebanon News | THE DAILY STAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you even read those links before you posted them?
Click to expand...






 Did you..................


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p4uFd-_NFwwz3oxXQ&sig2=F8506VctuijxFcRWYUv0cA
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...X-IyUwRhdA0DUqSww&sig2=HXP0Jk9Ig5ZYf7uC_E1dhQ
> The New Generation of Jordanian Jihadi Fighters - Sada
> Plots against Army emerge in Ain al-Hilweh | News , Lebanon News | THE DAILY STAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read those links before you posted them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you..................
Click to expand...


I did.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinians are violent by nature they would be violent to everyone.
> 
> Give me a short list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, terrorism around the world from hijackings to bombings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...


Oh, come on.  What kind of question is that?  Everyone knows King Hussein killed 10,000 Palestinians (or even more), when they tried to take over Jordan.  Everyone knows that the Palestinians took sides in the Lebanese Civil War, and played soccer with Christian skulls.    Everyone knows that Kuwait kicked out the Palestinians there, when they became a threat.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

1398 Palestinians killed by Israel in Cast Lead

6 Israelis killed by Palestinians in Cast Lead

LOOK at those barbarian Israelis.

When did King Hussein become a Palestinian?

What I see from all the fatality statistics is Israel is doing  a whole bunch more killing then Palestinians.  

In Palestine and in Lebanon, too.


----------



## Kondor3

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> "When did King Hussein become a Palestinian?..."


The very moment that the Palestinians became Jordanian citizens?



> "..._What I see from all the fatality statistics is Israel is doing  a whole bunch more killing then Palestinians_..."


Hugely disproportionate kill-ratios, as a matter of fact. That's the way that wars are won, by killing lots more of the Bad Guys than they kill of you.



> "..._In Palestine and in Lebanon, too._"


Location doesn't matter... here... there... anywhere's a good place to kill Palestinian combatants.


----------



## MHunterB

The largest ethnic group in Jordan are 'Palestinians', about half the population: Demographics of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Here's something interesting: Of the 3 million people in Jordan, 2 million are so-claimed 'Palestinian refugees'... as others have explained, only these refugees continue to get 'compensation' from the UN so many decades afterwards.

The real question here is, why didn't they declare the Palestinian State the day after the Jordanians 'liberated' the WB????


----------



## Indeependent

MHunterB said:


> The largest ethnic group in Jordan are 'Palestinians', about half the population: Demographics of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here's something interesting: Of the 3 million people in Jordan, 2 million are so-claimed 'Palestinian refugees'... as others have explained, only these refugees continue to get 'compensation' from the UN so many decades afterwards.
> 
> The real question here is, why didn't they declare the Palestinian State the day after the Jordanians 'liberated' the WB????



Who REALLY gets this "compensation"?


----------



## Kondor3

MHunterB said:


> The largest ethnic group in Jordan are 'Palestinians', about half the population: Demographics of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here's something interesting: Of the 3 million people in Jordan, 2 million are so-claimed 'Palestinian refugees'... as others have explained, only these refugees continue to get 'compensation' from the UN so many decades afterwards.
> 
> The real question here is, why didn't they declare the Palestinian State the day after the Jordanians 'liberated' the WB????


Aren't the lands comprising modern-day Israel and Rump Palestine actually part of the old TransJordan and, with the Mandate ending, the Jordanians moved to 'resume' the unity of the TransJordanian peoples and lands? Little did they know at the time that they were sealing the fate of their ethnic brethren and co-religionists in the West Bank and Gaza.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read those links before you posted them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.
Click to expand...




Did you see this 

 The young Palestinians fighting in Syria


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, terrorism around the world from hijackings to bombings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, come on.  What kind of question is that?  Everyone knows King Hussein killed 10,000 Palestinians (or even more), when they tried to take over Jordan.  Everyone knows that the Palestinians took sides in the Lebanese Civil War, and played soccer with Christian skulls.    Everyone knows that Kuwait kicked out the Palestinians there, when they became a threat.
Click to expand...






He asks for links and then denies they meet with his question when they do. He is a  and should be treated as you would a senile old aunty


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were INVITED BY THE BRITISH WHO RULED THE LAND AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
> 
> And again, there was no Palestinian country to take over. Doesn't matter how many times you say it , but there was no Palestinian state at the time.
> For fucks sake, you don't even know WHEN Palestine became a country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Palestine Mandate say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in any other* country*;...
> 
> ... national home in that *country*;...
> 
> ... for placing the* country* ...
> 
> ...to assist and take part in the development of the* country.*
> 
> ... interests of the community in connection with the development of the *country*,...
> 
> ... the natural resources of the *country*...
> 
> ...appropriate to the needs of the *country*,...
> 
> ... develop any of the natural resources of the* country*,...
> 
> ...for the benefit of the *country*...
> 
> ...for the defence of the *country*,...
> 
> ... natural resources of the *country* and to safeguard the interests of the population...
> 
> No antiquity may leave the *country*...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They use "country" here to describe the region the way some folks will use "Kleenex" to generically describe any ol' facial tissue... doesn't mean that it's actually Kleenex, though.
Click to expand...





 And the above that he is relying on is only valid if the people take up the mantle of self determination, and take pains to stop outside interference. Which is what the Jews did when they declared the state of Israel on May 14 1948. The arabs decided war was the better option and have been getting their butts kicked ever since


----------



## Phoenall

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead | B'Tselem
> 
> 1398 Palestinians killed by Israel in Cast Lead
> 
> 6 Israelis killed by Palestinians in Cast Lead
> 
> LOOK at those barbarian Israelis.
> 
> When did King Hussein become a Palestinian?
> 
> What I see from all the fatality statistics is Israel is doing  a whole bunch more killing then Palestinians.
> 
> In Palestine and in Lebanon, too.






 Now look at the reality shall we, the Palestinians were killed because hamas used civilian areas to fire rockets from, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. So every single one of those deaths is down to hamas and the Palestinians. 
 When he became King of Jordan he became a Palestinian as Jordan is part of greater Palestine. But he also commanded his troops to fire on Palestinian terrorists hiding in the refugee camps killing 25,000 people. So were is your outrage at that atrocity against the Palestinian people. Were is your demands of attacking Jordan and handing the country to the PLO.


----------



## Sally

Phoenall said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead | B'Tselem
> 
> 1398 Palestinians killed by Israel in Cast Lead
> 
> 6 Israelis killed by Palestinians in Cast Lead
> 
> LOOK at those barbarian Israelis.
> 
> When did King Hussein become a Palestinian?
> 
> What I see from all the fatality statistics is Israel is doing  a whole bunch more killing then Palestinians.
> 
> In Palestine and in Lebanon, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the reality shall we, the Palestinians were killed because hamas used civilian areas to fire rockets from, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. So every single one of those deaths is down to hamas and the Palestinians.
> When he became King of Jordan he became a Palestinian as Jordan is part of greater Palestine. But he also commanded his troops to fire on Palestinian terrorists hiding in the refugee camps killing 25,000 people. So were is your outrage at that atrocity against the Palestinian people. Were is your demands of attacking Jordan and handing the country to the PLO.
Click to expand...


Is she back to the same old, same old that she has spammed the forums a gazillion times?  This happened a while back, and many of those killed were militants.  Meanwhile in more recent days, her friends have certainly managed to kill many, many more innocent people.  These dead people are nothing to her because she can't drag in the Jews.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead | B'Tselem
> 
> 1398 Palestinians killed by Israel in Cast Lead
> 
> 6 Israelis killed by Palestinians in Cast Lead
> 
> LOOK at those barbarian Israelis.
> 
> When did King Hussein become a Palestinian?
> 
> What I see from all the fatality statistics is Israel is doing  a whole bunch more killing then Palestinians.
> 
> In Palestine and in Lebanon, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the reality shall we, the Palestinians were killed because hamas used civilian areas to fire rockets from, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. So every single one of those deaths is down to hamas and the Palestinians.
> When he became King of Jordan he became a Palestinian as Jordan is part of greater Palestine. But he also commanded his troops to fire on Palestinian terrorists hiding in the refugee camps killing 25,000 people. So were is your outrage at that atrocity against the Palestinian people. Were is your demands of attacking Jordan and handing the country to the PLO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Is she back to the same old, same old that she has spammed the forums a gazillion times?  *This happened a while back, and many of those killed were militants.  Meanwhile in more recent days, her friends have certainly managed to kill many, many more innocent people.  These dead people are nothing to her because she can't drag in the Jews.
Click to expand...



Sally, really, you've been spamming the same stuff for at least twenty years, like a broken record...


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the reality shall we, the Palestinians were killed because hamas used civilian areas to fire rockets from, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. So every single one of those deaths is down to hamas and the Palestinians.
> When he became King of Jordan he became a Palestinian as Jordan is part of greater Palestine. But he also commanded his troops to fire on Palestinian terrorists hiding in the refugee camps killing 25,000 people. So were is your outrage at that atrocity against the Palestinian people. Were is your demands of attacking Jordan and handing the country to the PLO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is she back to the same old, same old that she has spammed the forums a gazillion times?  *This happened a while back, and many of those killed were militants.  Meanwhile in more recent days, her friends have certainly managed to kill many, many more innocent people.  These dead people are nothing to her because she can't drag in the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, really, you've been spamming the same stuff for at least twenty years, like a broken record...
Click to expand...


You're such a fool and a liar, Pbel.  Aren't you somewhat confused?  You are the one who has saved your ridiculous essays and have brought them up time and time again over the past severa; years.  Why not tell everyone about all those silly poems you had made up about posters you didn't like and posted these poems over and over.  Twenty years ago, fool, I wasn't even on the Internet.  You are talking about yourself.  Get checked for Alzheimer's.  Your memory is shot.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Even if that were true, are you saying that's a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children ??


What do you mean, _"...if it was true?"_

Unlike you, I can back up what I claim.



> _In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem *shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours* and raising the Jewish national flag._


In answer to your question, no, it's not a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children.



toastman said:


> BTW, that wasn't the only reason: *The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places*


"Muslim holy places", like the _*Wailing Wall!*_


----------



## flacaltenn

Moderation Message

Zone2 requires relevent content in each post.
Warnings will be issued if this simple rule is ignored.

Thanks
flacaltenn


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, are you saying that's a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children ??
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, _"...if it was true?"_
> 
> Unlike you, I can back up what I claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem *shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours* and raising the Jewish national flag._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In answer to your question, no, it's not a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, that wasn't the only reason: *The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Muslim holy places", like the _*Wailing Wall!*_
Click to expand...


Stop lying i always back up my claims, you are mistaking me from someone else


Every time some one brings up the massacre, you bring up that it was in response to the Jews wanting the wall to themselves as if it was a good reason to kill all those Jews.

BTW in case you didnt know, the Wall IS a Jewish holy site and Muslims have no religious claim to it at all


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the reality shall we, the Palestinians were killed because hamas used civilian areas to fire rockets from, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. So every single one of those deaths is down to hamas and the Palestinians.
> When he became King of Jordan he became a Palestinian as Jordan is part of greater Palestine. But he also commanded his troops to fire on Palestinian terrorists hiding in the refugee camps killing 25,000 people. So were is your outrage at that atrocity against the Palestinian people. Were is your demands of attacking Jordan and handing the country to the PLO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is she back to the same old, same old that she has spammed the forums a gazillion times?  *This happened a while back, and many of those killed were militants.  Meanwhile in more recent days, her friends have certainly managed to kill many, many more innocent people.  These dead people are nothing to her because she can't drag in the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, really, you've been spamming the same stuff for at least twenty years, like a broken record...
Click to expand...




So no comment on the reality that is islam then, how hamas is to blame under International Law for allowing civilian areas to be used military sites. How it is seen as a WAR CRIME under International Law and was highlighted by Goldstone in his report. 

Same with Jordan firing on the caged Palestinian terrorists a WAR CRIME that is never brought up by the islamonazis, or the fact that 25,000 Palestinians were mass murdered by the Jordan army in one short month. A fact that shows Israel to be much less violent than the palestinians


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, are you saying that's a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children ??
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, _"...if it was true?"_
> 
> Unlike you, I can back up what I claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem *shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours* and raising the Jewish national flag._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In answer to your question, no, it's not a reason to massacre 67 men, women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, that wasn't the only reason: *The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Muslim holy places", like the _*Wailing Wall!*_
Click to expand...






 So even though the history books say that the cause of the Hebron massacre was the pamphlets distributed by the grand mufti were instrumental in the attacks on Jews you still believe the BLOOD LIBEL was the real reason

The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine,* by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places.*
1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is she back to the same old, same old that she has spammed the forums a gazillion times?  *This happened a while back, and many of those killed were militants.  Meanwhile in more recent days, her friends have certainly managed to kill many, many more innocent people.  These dead people are nothing to her because she can't drag in the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, really, you've been spamming the same stuff for at least twenty years, like a broken record...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no comment on the reality that is islam then, how hamas is to blame under International Law for allowing civilian areas to be used military sites. How it is seen as a WAR CRIME under International Law and was highlighted by Goldstone in his report.
> 
> Same with Jordan firing on the caged Palestinian terrorists a WAR CRIME that is never brought up by the islamonazis, or the fact that 25,000 Palestinians were mass murdered by the Jordan army in one short month. A fact that shows Israel to be much less violent than the palestinians
Click to expand...


On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.

I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "...The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far..."


I doubt that's true.

The Arabs kill far more with their petty internecine squabbling, although the Israelis have, indeed, killed copious numbers of Arab military personnel whose masters were foolish enough to provoke the Israelis over the past 66 years.

The Israelis *DO* turn-in really outstanding and favorable Kill Ratios, don't they? This is how one wins wars... by killing far more of the Bad Guys than they kill of you. Dog bites man. We strive for the same ourselves, in our own conflicts.



> "..._I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually_."


For what?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, really, you've been spamming the same stuff for at least twenty years, like a broken record...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no comment on the reality that is islam then, how hamas is to blame under International Law for allowing civilian areas to be used military sites. How it is seen as a WAR CRIME under International Law and was highlighted by Goldstone in his report.
> 
> Same with Jordan firing on the caged Palestinian terrorists a WAR CRIME that is never brought up by the islamonazis, or the fact that 25,000 Palestinians were mass murdered by the Jordan army in one short month. A fact that shows Israel to be much less violent than the palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.
> 
> I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.
Click to expand...






Jordan is reported to have mass murdered 25,000 innocents, now if you take away the terrorists, militants, militia and collateral deaths Israel has killed maybe 1,000 in 65 years which comes in at just over 1 a month. How many millions died in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, iran and Lebanon in the same 65 years at the hands of Islamic terrorists. don't forget that Israel is the defender and they always have far fewer deaths than the aggressors/attackers do


This puts the situation in a proper light and shows the deaths on both sides

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, really, you've been spamming the same stuff for at least twenty years, like a broken record...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no comment on the reality that is islam then, how hamas is to blame under International Law for allowing civilian areas to be used military sites. How it is seen as a WAR CRIME under International Law and was highlighted by Goldstone in his report.
> 
> Same with Jordan firing on the caged Palestinian terrorists a WAR CRIME that is never brought up by the islamonazis, or the fact that 25,000 Palestinians were mass murdered by the Jordan army in one short month. A fact that shows Israel to be much less violent than the palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.
> 
> I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.
Click to expand...


Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?


----------



## Indeependent

Really Toast,
You're expecting a rational response?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no comment on the reality that is islam then, how hamas is to blame under International Law for allowing civilian areas to be used military sites. How it is seen as a WAR CRIME under International Law and was highlighted by Goldstone in his report.
> 
> Same with Jordan firing on the caged Palestinian terrorists a WAR CRIME that is never brought up by the islamonazis, or the fact that 25,000 Palestinians were mass murdered by the Jordan army in one short month. A fact that shows Israel to be much less violent than the palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.
> 
> I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?
Click to expand...


Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.
> 
> I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.
Click to expand...


I am curious about what thing, and maybe Pbel will be kind enough to explain it to us.  How come, Pbel, you only appeared interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict even when you had a chance (and still have that opportunity) to discuss other issues in the Middle East.  It is very difficult to believe that anyone actually cares about the "poor Palestinian Arabs" when he or she overlooks what is happening to those real unfortunate Arabs in other places in the Middle East.  We see how many of them have been murdered (tens of thousands in the last few years alone), the amount o wounded must be enormous, and millions have been made refugees (many living in freezing tents) as a result of actions by their fellow Arabs, and yet some posters really don't seem to care about these people.  Truthfully, it appears that if the Jews are not involved in whatever atrocity is visited upon these unfortunate Arabs, there are those who just close their eyes to it.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no comment on the reality that is islam then, how hamas is to blame under International Law for allowing civilian areas to be used military sites. How it is seen as a WAR CRIME under International Law and was highlighted by Goldstone in his report.
> 
> Same with Jordan firing on the caged Palestinian terrorists a WAR CRIME that is never brought up by the islamonazis, or the fact that 25,000 Palestinians were mass murdered by the Jordan army in one short month. A fact that shows Israel to be much less violent than the palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.
> 
> I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?
Click to expand...


If he's comparing it to inter-Arab squabbles, I don't know if that's true.  One million in the Iran-Iraq war, 10-20,000 Palestinians by King Hussein, 140,000 in Syria so far, thousands in the Lebanese Civil War, etc, etc.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am curious about what thing, and maybe Pbel will be kind enough to explain it to us.  How come, Pbel, you only appeared interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict even when you had a chance (and still have that opportunity) to discuss other issues in the Middle East.  It is very difficult to believe that anyone actually cares about the "poor Palestinian Arabs" when he or she overlooks what is happening to those real unfortunate Arabs in other places in the Middle East.  We see how many of them have been murdered (tens of thousands in the last few years alone), the amount o wounded must be enormous, and millions have been made refugees (many living in freezing tents) as a result of actions by their fellow Arabs, and yet some posters really don't seem to care about these people.  Truthfully, it appears that if the Jews are not involved in whatever atrocity is visited upon these unfortunate Arabs, there are those who just close their eyes to it.
Click to expand...


Sally, you have got to stop looking for reasoning beyond what is posted...I zeroed in on this Conflict because in my view, it has created terrorism against Americans...Western Colonialism is not part of the American spirit...

Sure I feel awful about the Holocaust and wish a safe-haven for Jews and wish for an acceptable peace and hope that terrorism stops killing Americans at home and in our foolish and unwinnable wars in Asia. Israel should learn this lesson too as this Conflicts borders keep expanding.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what thing, and maybe Pbel will be kind enough to explain it to us.  How come, Pbel, you only appeared interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict even when you had a chance (and still have that opportunity) to discuss other issues in the Middle East.  It is very difficult to believe that anyone actually cares about the "poor Palestinian Arabs" when he or she overlooks what is happening to those real unfortunate Arabs in other places in the Middle East.  We see how many of them have been murdered (tens of thousands in the last few years alone), the amount o wounded must be enormous, and millions have been made refugees (many living in freezing tents) as a result of actions by their fellow Arabs, and yet some posters really don't seem to care about these people.  Truthfully, it appears that if the Jews are not involved in whatever atrocity is visited upon these unfortunate Arabs, there are those who just close their eyes to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sally, you have got to stop looking for reasoning beyond what is posted...I zeroed in on this Conflict because in my view, it has created terrorism against Americans...Western Colonialism is not part of the American spirit...
> 
> Sure I feel awful about the Holocaust and wish a safe-haven for Jews and wish for an acceptable peace and hope that terrorism stops killing Americans at home and in our foolish and unwinnable wars in Asia. Israel should learn this lesson too as this Conflicts borders keep expanding.
Click to expand...


Why not tell us why you had nothing to say about the Middle East when you had a chance and still have a chance other than just concentrating on Israel/Palestine?  Aren't the Arabs, whether Muslims or Christians, who are being killed, wounded, and made refugees worth your consideration?  Meanwhile, I am sure that people who spread out their minds and don't just obsess over the Israel/Palestine conflict realize that there is harassing and killing people in the name of a religion not only in the Middle East but also Southeast Asia and Africa which has nothing to do with Israel, America or any of the other civilized countries.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this, I totaly agree....The ME is full of attrocities, but if you count the bodies, Israel has killed the most by far.
> 
> I hope they are all brought to International Justice eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.
Click to expand...




Count all the deaths by the Palestinians and in the Palestinians name and you see that they outnumber Israel's by at least 5 to 1.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious about what thing, and maybe Pbel will be kind enough to explain it to us.  How come, Pbel, you only appeared interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict even when you had a chance (and still have that opportunity) to discuss other issues in the Middle East.  It is very difficult to believe that anyone actually cares about the "poor Palestinian Arabs" when he or she overlooks what is happening to those real unfortunate Arabs in other places in the Middle East.  We see how many of them have been murdered (tens of thousands in the last few years alone), the amount o wounded must be enormous, and millions have been made refugees (many living in freezing tents) as a result of actions by their fellow Arabs, and yet some posters really don't seem to care about these people.  Truthfully, it appears that if the Jews are not involved in whatever atrocity is visited upon these unfortunate Arabs, there are those who just close their eyes to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sally, you have got to stop looking for reasoning beyond what is posted...I zeroed in on this Conflict because in my view, it has created terrorism against Americans...Western Colonialism is not part of the American spirit...
> 
> Sure I feel awful about the Holocaust and wish a safe-haven for Jews and wish for an acceptable peace and hope that terrorism stops killing Americans at home and in our foolish and unwinnable wars in Asia. Israel should learn this lesson too as this Conflicts borders keep expanding.
Click to expand...





And it is all down to the Palestinians needs to take over other peoples land. Just look at what they did in Lebanon, and tried to do in Egypt and Jordan. Even when they admit to mass murder you deny the fact.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel killed more than who ??? Who are you comparing Israel to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between Israelis and Palestinians, you know, the Topic of this Thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Count all the deaths by the Palestinians and in the Palestinians name and you see that they outnumber Israel's by at least 5 to 1.
Click to expand...


You always appear to make wacky statements without proof of veracity...please provide your link to support your statement...
Israeli?Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fatalities 19482011

See also: Israeli casualties of war and Palestinian casualties of war

A variety of studies provide differing casualty data for the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 13,000 Israelis and Palestinians were killed in conflict with each other between 1948 and 1997.[218] Other estimations give 14,500 killed between 19482009.[218][219] Palestinian fatalities during the 1982 Lebanon War were 2,000 PLO combatants killed in armed conflict with Israel.[220]


Civilian casualty figures for the IsraeliPalestinian conflict from B'tselem and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 1987 and 2010[221][222][223][224]
 (numbers in parentheses represent casualties under age 18)


Year

Deaths


Palestinians

Israelis


2011
118 (13) 11 (5) 

2010
81 (9) 8 (0) 

2009
1034 (314) 9 (1) 

2008
887 (128) 35 (4) 

2007
385 (52) 13 (0) 

2006
665 (140) 23 (1) 

2005
190 (49) 51 (6) 

2004
832 (181) 108 (8) 

2003
588 (119) 185 (21) 

2002
1032 (160) 419 (47) 

2001
469 (80) 192 (36) 

2000
282 (86) 41 (0) 

1999
9 (0) 4 (0) 

1998
28 (3) 12 (0) 

1997
21 (5) 29 (3) 

1996
74 (11) 75 (8) 

1995
45 (5) 46 (0) 

1994
152 (24) 74 (2) 

1993
180 (41) 61 (0) 

1992
138 (23) 34 (1) 

1991
104 (27) 19 (0) 

1990
145 (25) 22 (0) 

1989
305 (83) 31 (1) 

1988
310 (50) 12 (3) 

1987
22 (5) 0 (0) 

Total

7978 (1620)

1503 (142)


Note: Figures includes 1,593 Palestinian fatalities attributed to intra-Palestinian violence. Figures do not include the 600 Palestinians killed by other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since 2006.[137]


Demographic percentages for the IsraeliPalestinian conflict according to Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs from September 2000 until the end of July 2007.[225]


Belligerent

Combatant

Civilian

Male

Female

Children

Children Male

Children Female


Palestinian 41% 59% 94% 6% 20% 87% 13% 
Israeli 31% 69% 69% 31% 12% Not available Not available 



Partial casualty figures for the IsraeliPalestinian conflict from the OCHAoPt[226]
 (numbers in parentheses represent casualties under age 18)


Year

Deaths

Injuries


Palestinians

Israelis

Palestinians

Israelis


200826.12.08[227]
464 (87) 31 (4)  

2007
396 (43) 13 (0) 1843 (265) 322 (3) 

2006
678 (127) 25 (2) 3194 (470) 377 (7) 

2005
216 (52) 48 (6) 1260 (129) 484 (4) 

Total

1754 (309)

117 (12)

6297 (864)

1183 (14)


All numbers refer to casualties


----------



## proudveteran06

pbel said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
Click to expand...


Not within the Jewish State. You actually gave one more reason why Israel won't bow to Abbas demands


----------



## pbel

proudveteran06 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not within the Jewish State. You actually gave one more reason why Israel won't bow to Abbas demands
Click to expand...


If the Jewish State annexes the West Bank, the Jewish State would have a Muslim Majority in 20 years, is my guess.

A two state solution is the only option...Although two self ruling Confederate States with free access of travel to Holy places etc. makes more sense to me...In the future perhaps?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the Jewish State. You actually gave one more reason why Israel won't bow to Abbas demands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Jewish State annexes the West Bank, the Jewish State would have a Muslim Majority in 20 years, is my guess.
> 
> A two state solution is the only option...Although two self ruling Confederate States with free access of travel to Holy places etc. makes more sense to me...In the future perhaps?
Click to expand...

If Israel annexes the West Bank, it will expel the Palestinians. Future demographics problem solved.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the Jewish State. You actually gave one more reason why Israel won't bow to Abbas demands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jewish State annexes the West Bank, the Jewish State would have a Muslim Majority in 20 years, is my guess.
> 
> A two state solution is the only option...Although two self ruling Confederate States with free access of travel to Holy places etc. makes more sense to me...In the future perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel annexes the West Bank, it will expel the Palestinians. Future demographics problem solved.
Click to expand...


Israel will never expel the Palestinians, your Rabbi Kahane notions have been declared illegal by the Israelis...talking fantasies of expulsions only marginalizes all your credibility.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Jewish State annexes the West Bank, the Jewish State would have a Muslim Majority in 20 years, is my guess.
> 
> A two state solution is the only option...Although two self ruling Confederate States with free access of travel to Holy places etc. makes more sense to me...In the future perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel annexes the West Bank, it will expel the Palestinians. Future demographics problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel will never expel the Palestinians, your Rabbi Kahane notions have been declared illegal by the Israelis...talking fantasies of expulsions only marginalizes all your credibility.
Click to expand...


I agree that Israel won't expel the Palestinians.  The world is too obsessed by the Israel/Palestine conflict to let that happen.  On the other hand, Russia could expel all the Chechens, and the world wouldn't blink an eye.


----------



## pbel

Its not a question of obsession, its one of oil interests along with a sense of justice...Chechnya has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...your yard stick is way too long and not analogous. 

The original partition plan modified and accepted to the 67 borders with freedoms of religious pilgrimages...Ideal!


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the Jewish State. You actually gave one more reason why Israel won't bow to Abbas demands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Jewish State annexes the West Bank, the Jewish State would have a Muslim Majority in 20 years, is my guess.
> 
> A two state solution is the only option...Although two self ruling Confederate States with free access of travel to Holy places etc. makes more sense to me...In the future perhaps?
Click to expand...






  If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow morning then it wont matter will it. For the demographics to make a difference the Israelis would need to give the Palestinians Israeli citizenship, otherwise they are just going to have to become terrorists and face summary execution. 

 I cant see4 the Palestinians changing their charter any time soon and allowing Israelis and Jews free access to the holy sites. Makes more sense to have the UN in control of them and with no weapons allowed within a 1 mile radius other than the multi-national UN guard. Any damage or defilement by either religion will result in that religion losing its access for 100 years.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Its not a question of obsession, its one of oil interests along with a sense of justice...Chechnya has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...your yard stick is way too long and not analogous.
> 
> The original partition plan modified and accepted to the 67 borders with freedoms of religious pilgrimages...Ideal!





 No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.


----------



## Indeependent

Once again the reality of Israel escapes those who don't want to know...
Orthodox Jews are moving to the settlements in droves.
The Palestinians WILL be expelled.
Just not tomorrow or next year; perhaps in 5 years.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a question of obsession, its one of oil interests along with a sense of justice...Chechnya has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...your yard stick is way too long and not analogous.
> 
> The original partition plan modified and accepted to the 67 borders with freedoms of religious pilgrimages...Ideal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.
Click to expand...


Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?

Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a question of obsession, its one of oil interests along with a sense of justice...Chechnya has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...your yard stick is way too long and not analogous.
> 
> The original partition plan modified and accepted to the 67 borders with freedoms of religious pilgrimages...Ideal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
Click to expand...


It's a concept I just came up with...My military can kick your military's a$$.


----------



## Ronin

Indeependent said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a concept I just came up with...My military can kick your military's a$$.
Click to expand...


Past the debates, historical interpretations, compromises, treaties, and through the course of the world's future: that last statement holds more truth than anything else.

Winners define morality; like a game of tic tac toe.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a question of obsession, its one of oil interests along with a sense of justice...Chechnya has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...your yard stick is way too long and not analogous.
> 
> The original partition plan modified and accepted to the 67 borders with freedoms of religious pilgrimages...Ideal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
Click to expand...






It seems that you need to provide one with your calls for borders, I said boundaries which are a different thing all together.  But here goes for evidence of the new borders of Israel

Israel's borders under international law & according to the Bible

 The 1949 Green Line

The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel, and so the UN arranged a series of ceasefires. UN GA Resolution 194 called for cessation of hostilities and return of refugees.* Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice (truce/ceasefire) agreements that would lead to permanent peace and as a result Israel's borders were re-established along the so-called "Green Line*". This demarcation or armistice line, drawn up under the auspices of UN mediator Ralph Bunche, largely reflected the ceasefire lines of 1949 (Fig 5) and as such represented interim borders for Israel.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you need to provide one with your calls for borders,* I said boundaries which are a different thing all together.  But here goes for evidence of the new borders of Israel
> 
> Israel's borders under international law & according to the Bible*
> The 1949 Green Line
> 
> The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel, and so the UN arranged a series of ceasefires. UN GA Resolution 194 called for cessation of hostilities and return of refugees.* Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice (truce/ceasefire) agreements that would lead to permanent peace and as a result Israel's borders were re-established along the so-called "Green Line*". This demarcation or armistice line, drawn up under the auspices of UN mediator Ralph Bunche, largely reflected the ceasefire lines of 1949 (Fig 5) and as such represented interim borders for Israel.
Click to expand...


The usual Double talk expected of you...The Bible of one of the ME Moon gods? No thanks...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Israel will never expel the Palestinians, your Rabbi Kahane notions have been declared illegal by the Israelis...talking fantasies of expulsions only marginalizes all your credibility._"


Israel will never expel the Palestinians?

Please continue thinking in that vein, and take the Palestinians along for the mental ride.

That way, it will come as a complete surprise, on Annexation Day.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as '67 borders they are an Islamic fallacy, the last recognised boundaries are the ones in place now and that is were the peace deal should be looking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you need to provide one with your calls for borders, I said boundaries which are a different thing all together.  But here goes for evidence of the new borders of Israel
> 
> Israel's borders under international law & according to the Bible
> 
> The 1949 Green Line
> 
> The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel, and so the UN arranged a series of ceasefires. UN GA Resolution 194 called for cessation of hostilities and return of refugees.* Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice (truce/ceasefire) agreements that would lead to permanent peace and as a result Israel's borders were re-established along the so-called "Green Line*". This demarcation or armistice line, drawn up under the auspices of UN mediator Ralph Bunche, largely reflected the ceasefire lines of 1949 (Fig 5) and as such represented interim borders for Israel.
Click to expand...




> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



Here is my link. Where is yours?


----------



## Kondor3

Ronin said:


> "..._Past the debates, historical interpretations, compromises, treaties, and through the course of the world's future: that last statement holds more truth than anything else. Winners define morality; like a game of tic tac toe_..."









As cold as it sounds... Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. Fair has nothing to do with it. Law has nothing to do with it. Military muscle dictates the state of affairs on the ground in contested regions.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel will never expel the Palestinians, your Rabbi Kahane notions have been declared illegal by the Israelis...talking fantasies of expulsions only marginalizes all your credibility._"
> 
> 
> 
> Israel will never expel the Palestinians?
> 
> Please continue thinking in that vein, and take the Palestinians along for the mental ride.
> 
> That way, it will come as a complete surprise, on Annexation Day.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel will never expel the Palestinians, your Rabbi Kahane notions have been declared illegal by the Israelis...talking fantasies of expulsions only marginalizes all your credibility._"
> 
> 
> 
> Israel will never expel the Palestinians?
> 
> Please continue thinking in that vein, and take the Palestinians along for the mental ride.
> 
> That way, it will come as a complete surprise, on Annexation Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Annexation, eviction and expulsion is the only way for the Iraelis to cut the Gordian Knot and to overcome your own much-vaunted threat of long-term population demographics pressure, if the Israelis want the West Bank and Gaza, or if they find themselves with a one-state solution on their hands.

The Jews have waited for 2000 years to re-take the Holy Land and Jerusalem, and they've paid the price with their blood.

If you think they are going to give any of that up, you're just plain, flat-out wrong.

And if Palestinian population pressure threatens their control of the Holy Land, the only way to fix that is to reduce the population before such a state of affairs can be brought to bear upon the Israelis.

There are two ways to do that:

1. move the IDF into the West Bank and Gaza and slaughter every living soul and every living thing that moves, and bulldoze the bodies into the earth.

2. evict them and deport them to other countries.

The Jews won't do (1)... too inhumane, and too much like what was done to them by Euro-Trash, and too much like what the Arab-Muslims threatened to do to them. The Jews are better than that.

That leaves (2).

Negotiations will not work. Peace talks will not work. (2) is going to prove to be the only answer that leaves Israel intact,defensible and sustainable, and without future threat from inside its borders.

You go right ahead and keep calling it 'nuts'.

One of these days, once this very same thing is making the headlines, I'll remind you of this exchange.

Peoples are expelled all the time.

The Arabs-Muslims expelled nearly 1,000,000 Jews from their own countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe, without so much as a wrist-slap.

This will be no different, and it will yield peace for a while, once the dust clears, because the Palestinians will be broken-up and scattered and no longer living a stone's throw away.

The world will wag its finger, then breathe a sigh of relief, and enjoy the peace and quiet, and quickly forget.

The Arabs did it to the Jews.

Now it's the Arabs' turn in the barrel.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel will never expel the Palestinians?
> 
> Please continue thinking in that vein, and take the Palestinians along for the mental ride.
> 
> That way, it will come as a complete surprise, on Annexation Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Annexation, eviction and expulsion is the only way for the Iraelis to cut the Gordian Knot and to overcome your own much-vaunted threat of long-term population demographics pressure, if the Israelis want the West Bank and Gaza, or if they find themselves with a one-state solution on their hands.
> 
> The Jews have waited for 2000 years to re-take the Holy Land and Jerusalem, and they've paid the price with their blood.
> 
> If you think they are going to give any of that up, you're just plain, flat-out wrong.
> 
> And if Palestinian population pressure threatens their control of the Holy Land, the only way to fix that is to reduce the population before such a state of affairs can be brought to bear upon the Israelis.
> 
> There are two ways to do that:
> 
> 1. move the IDF into the West Bank and Gaza and slaughter every living soul and every living thing that moves, and bulldoze the bodies into the earth.
> 
> 2. evict them and deport them to other countries.
> 
> The Jews won't do (1)... too inhumane, and too much like what was done to them by Euro-Trash, and too much like what the Arab-Muslims threatened to do to them. The Jews are better than that.
> 
> That leaves (2).
> 
> Negotiations will not work. Peace talks will not work. (2) is going to prove to be the only answer that leaves Israel intact,defensible and sustainable, and without future threat from inside its borders.
> 
> You go right ahead and keep calling it 'nuts'.
> 
> One of these days, once this very same thing is making the headlines, I'll remind you of this exchange.
> 
> Peoples are expelled all the time.
> 
> The Arabs-Muslims expelled nearly 1,000,000 Jews from their own countries in the 1948-1975 timeframe, without so much as a wrist-slap.
> 
> This will be no different, and it will yield peace for a while, once the dust clears, because the Palestinians will be broken-up and scattered and no longer living a stone's throw away.
> 
> The world will wag its finger, then breathe a sigh of relief, and enjoy the peace and quiet, and quickly forget.
> 
> The Arabs did it to the Jews.
> 
> Now it's the Arabs' turn in the barrel.
Click to expand...


This would work fine in a best-case scenario.  But don't you think that the world is obsessed with the Palestinians, in a way that they aren't with the Kurds or Chechens or Cypriots?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I agree, that you tend to twist and distort the intent of the Armistice Line.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you need to provide one with your calls for borders, I said boundaries which are a different thing all together.  But here goes for evidence of the new borders of Israel
> 
> Israel's borders under international law & according to the Bible
> 
> The 1949 Green Line
> 
> The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel, and so the UN arranged a series of ceasefires. UN GA Resolution 194 called for cessation of hostilities and return of refugees.* Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice (truce/ceasefire) agreements that would lead to permanent peace and as a result Israel's borders were re-established along the so-called "Green Line*". This demarcation or armistice line, drawn up under the auspices of UN mediator Ralph Bunche, largely reflected the ceasefire lines of 1949 (Fig 5) and as such represented interim borders for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is my link. Where is yours?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

As may be usual, only half the story is told.  For all intense and purposes, Armistice Lines are handled exactly the same as other lines of demarcation.  The only difference is the temporal nature and termination on a Peace Accord.  In terms of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Armistice Line has all the characteristics of a border, until such time as a Peace Accord makes it obsolete. 

There are two important aspects to keep in mind in terms of the universal recognition of the delineation and demarcation of both Israel and Palestine (each as States).

*FIRST:*  The international view:



			
				Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States said:
			
		

> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, _*such as armistice lines*_, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Declaration of Principles



*SECOND:*  The Palestinian View:



			
				PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)  said:
			
		

> *Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> .
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> .
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> _*SOURCE:*_ PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rhodescholar

Kondor3 said:


> Annexation, eviction and expulsion is the only way for the Iraelis to cut the Gordian Knot and to overcome your own much-vaunted threat of long-term population demographics pressure, if the Israelis want the West Bank and Gaza, or if they find themselves with a one-state solution on their hands.



Israel's mistake was not expelling them in '67 when they could have.  Now, unless they do an Azerbijian and deport them all and say: "FU!" to the world, they would have significant fallout to deal with.  Sadly, since the hypocritical scum like what permeates these threads, the UN, world media, etc, holds jews to a different standard that anyone else, Israel would face some economically challenging times.  Azerbijian did for a few years after expelling its muslims, endured a few years of sanctions, and then everything went smoothly.  Israel should take note.



> The Jews have waited for 2000 years to re-take the Holy Land and Jerusalem, and they've paid the price with their blood.If you think they are going to give any of that up, you're just plain, flat-out wrong.



Many of us with long military experience would be on the next flight over to ensure Israel exacts ten times the blood of the arab muslim filthy invaders the moment our assistance is requested.  People I knew went in '73 when a worldwide call was issued for able-bodied, and I will gladly step back into uniform to fifty-cal a few thousand ragheads coming over the redlines...



> The Jews won't do (1)... too inhumane, and too much like what was done to them by Euro-Trash, and too much like what the Arab-Muslims threatened to do to them. The Jews are better than that.



Correction: the arab muslims have tried to do so, multiple times.



> Negotiations will not work. Peace talks will not work. (2) is going to prove to be the only answer that leaves Israel intact,defensible and sustainable, and without future threat from inside its borders.



Agreed, but it is doubtful that they'd leave willingly, and the insane, racist intolerance of the arab muslim is why perpetual war with them is inevitable.



> One of these days, once this very same thing is making the headlines, I'll remind you of this exchange. Peoples are expelled all the time.



Yes, but the jew-hating **** filth permeating this forum isn't interested in facts - only keeping the focus on what the jews do.


----------



## rhodescholar

ForeverYoung436 said:


> This would work fine in a best-case scenario.  But don't you think that the world is obsessed with the Palestinians, in a way that they aren't with the Kurds or Chechens or Cypriots?



Correction, they are obsessed with the jews, and fixate on what they do to a level of insanity.  If it were jews living alongside pidgeons in israel the jew-hating shit would still be all over the Israelis for the treatment of them, it would make no difference.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever stop distorting facts towards delusion? What Recognized borders, and recognized by whom?
> 
> Provide a link, and again a sanity certificate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you need to provide one with your calls for borders, I said boundaries which are a different thing all together.  But here goes for evidence of the new borders of Israel
> 
> Israel's borders under international law & according to the Bible
> 
> The 1949 Green Line
> 
> The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel, and so the UN arranged a series of ceasefires. UN GA Resolution 194 called for cessation of hostilities and return of refugees.* Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice (truce/ceasefire) agreements that would lead to permanent peace and as a result Israel's borders were re-established along the so-called "Green Line*". This demarcation or armistice line, drawn up under the auspices of UN mediator Ralph Bunche, largely reflected the ceasefire lines of 1949 (Fig 5) and as such represented interim borders for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is my link. Where is yours?
Click to expand...


And now Israel has an internationally recognized permanent border with Egypt. So whats your point?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I agree, that you tend to twist and distort the intent of the Armistice Line.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that you need to provide one with your calls for borders, I said boundaries which are a different thing all together.  But here goes for evidence of the new borders of Israel
> 
> Israel's borders under international law & according to the Bible
> 
> The 1949 Green Line
> 
> The Arab countries refused to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel, and so the UN arranged a series of ceasefires. UN GA Resolution 194 called for cessation of hostilities and return of refugees.* Security Council Resolution 62 called for implementation of armistice (truce/ceasefire) agreements that would lead to permanent peace and as a result Israel's borders were re-established along the so-called "Green Line*". This demarcation or armistice line, drawn up under the auspices of UN mediator Ralph Bunche, largely reflected the ceasefire lines of 1949 (Fig 5) and as such represented interim borders for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my link. Where is yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As may be usual, only half the story is told.  For all intense and purposes, Armistice Lines are handled exactly the same as other lines of demarcation.  The only difference is the temporal nature and termination on a Peace Accord.  In terms of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Armistice Line has all the characteristics of a border, until such time as a Peace Accord makes it obsolete.
> 
> There are two important aspects to keep in mind in terms of the universal recognition of the delineation and demarcation of both Israel and Palestine (each as States).
> 
> *FIRST:*  The international view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, _*such as armistice lines*_, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Declaration of Principles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SECOND:*  The Palestinian View:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)  said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> .
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> .
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> _*SOURCE:*_ PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Palestinian, and other maps of Palestine in the ME, do not show the non border armistice lines.


----------



## Kondor3

ForeverYoung436 said:


> "..._This would work fine in a best-case scenario. But don't you think that the world is obsessed with the Palestinians, in a way that they aren't with the Kurds or Chechens or Cypriots?_"


Only because the Arabs keep raggin' the rest of the world about it, and it's probably safe to venture a guess that most of the rest of the world is tired of listening to it after 66 years. The Arabs-Muslims lack the power to stop Israel. The rest of the world won't lift a finger to stop Israel. If the Israelis reach the conclusion that it's time to expel the Palestinians there will be nothing substantive to bar their way. They may be under a boycott or two here and there for a couple of years after the fact but, in truth, the world will be glad for the peace and quiet, and it has a very short memory. It the Israelis decide to Go-for-the-Gold in this context, they'll probably get away with it - easily. And they've got the backbone to go it alone.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Palestinian, and other maps of Palestine in the ME, do not show the non border armistice lines_..."


Now, all you've got to do is to make those operative in the Real World, and you're all set.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I agree, that you tend to twist and distort the intent of the Armistice Line.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my link. Where is yours?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As may be usual, only half the story is told.  For all intense and purposes, Armistice Lines are handled exactly the same as other lines of demarcation.  The only difference is the temporal nature and termination on a Peace Accord.  In terms of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Armistice Line has all the characteristics of a border, until such time as a Peace Accord makes it obsolete.
> 
> There are two important aspects to keep in mind in terms of the universal recognition of the delineation and demarcation of both Israel and Palestine (each as States).
> 
> *FIRST:*  The international view:
> 
> 
> 
> *SECOND:*  The Palestinian View:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)  said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> .
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> .
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> _*SOURCE:*_ PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinian, and other maps of Palestine in the ME, do not show the non border armistice lines.
Click to expand...


How can you show that disgusting map, without Israel on it?


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> So even though the history books say that the cause of the Hebron massacre was the pamphlets distributed by the grand mufti were instrumental in the attacks on Jews you still believe the BLOOD LIBEL was the real reason
> 
> The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews (including 23 college students) on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine,* by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places.*
> 1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You're like a little parrot!  A little, dumbass parrot.  Reciting things you don't even understand.  

_"...oh, maybe I'll use BIG RED WORDS, that'll look impressive!"​_That same link you provided also states that Zionists went down to the Wailing Wall declaring it "theirs".  Do you not realize that proves they were _"seizing control of Muslim holy places"?_  And that was the flashpoint of the riot.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> "...Do you not realize that proves they were _"seizing control of Muslim holy places"?_  And that was the flashpoint of the riot."


Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized _Jewish_ holy places.

What goes around comes around.

It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.

Enjoy.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized _Jewish_ holy places.
> 
> What goes around comes around.
> 
> It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.
> 
> Enjoy.


That's a pretty stupid thing to say, since the Wailing Wall happens to also be a _"Jewish holy place"._


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized _Jewish_ holy places.
> 
> What goes around comes around.
> 
> It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty stupid thing to say, since the Wailing Wall happens to also be a _"Jewish holy place"._
Click to expand...

No, bright boy, I was inferring that the _Muslim Holy Places_ you were talking about were the Dome of the Rock and the al Aqsa Mosque, built atop the Temple Mount, on top of the ruins of the Jewish Holy Places...


----------



## MHunterB

What's pretty stupid is Billo claiming that Jews declaring the Western Wall as 'theirs' had or could have any relation to 'seizing Muslim holy places' - the Wall was never in any way 'holy' to Muslims.

OTOH, many times during the Ottoman control of Israel, Jews were not allowed to enter the Jewish holy sites - and when Jordan illegally seized East Jerusalem, they ethnically cleansed the Jews from their homes in EJ AND denied all Jews (not just Israelis) any access to the Wall OR any other Jewish holy site under Jordanian control.

And there's also a small matter of the 28,000 grave markers removed from the historic Mt of Olives cemetery - and used as paving stones by the Jordanians.  

Then there's the Muslim attacks on Jewish sites which are also allegedly holy to Muslims - like the Tomb of the Patriarchs.


----------



## Billo_Really

MHunterB said:


> What's pretty stupid is Billo claiming that Jews declaring the Western Wall as 'theirs' had or could have any relation to 'seizing Muslim holy places' - the Wall was never in any way 'holy' to Muslims.
> 
> OTOH, many times during the Ottoman control of Israel, Jews were not allowed to enter the Jewish holy sites - and when Jordan illegally seized East Jerusalem, they ethnically cleansed the Jews from their homes in EJ AND denied all Jews (not just Israelis) any access to the Wall OR any other Jewish holy site under Jordanian control.
> 
> And there's also a small matter of the 28,000 grave markers removed from the historic Mt of Olives cemetery - and used as paving stones by the Jordanians.
> 
> Then there's the Muslim attacks on Jewish sites which are also allegedly holy to Muslims - like the Tomb of the Patriarchs.


According to racist pricks like you, muslims have no land, no humanity, no history, no reason to live and no holy places.

As human beings go, you're pretty fucked!


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> No, bright boy, I was inferring that the _Muslim Holy Places_ you were talking about were the Dome of the Rock and the al Aqsa Mosque, built atop the Temple Mount, on top of the ruins of the Jewish Holy Places...


Asking you what Islam is about, is like asking a Nazi what a Sadre is like.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, bright boy, I was inferring that the _Muslim Holy Places_ you were talking about were the Dome of the Rock and the al Aqsa Mosque, built atop the Temple Mount, on top of the ruins of the Jewish Holy Places...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you what Islam is about, is like asking a Nazi what a Sadre is like.
Click to expand...

Who gives a rat's ass what Islam is about?

Although, if you are a Western non-Muslim, there's a good chance that I've done (and mastered) more reading on the subject than you, or am at least sufficiently well-versed to deflect such an accusation, easily.

Not that the charge made any sense, in the context in which you served it up.

But why should you shift gears and suddenly begin making sense now, after all this time?

On my end... it is wise to study the ways and beliefs of one's enemy.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Who gives a rat's ass what Islam is about?


Obviously you did, since you felt the need to comment on their holy places.




Kondor3 said:


> Although, if you are a Western non-Muslim, there's a good chance that I've done (and mastered) more reading on the subject than you, or am at least sufficiently well-versed to deflect such an accusation, easily.
> 
> Not that the charge made any sense, in the context in which you served it up.
> 
> But why should you shift gears now and suddenly begin making sense?


You "think" you know shit and I "know" you don't!


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a rat's ass what Islam is about?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did, since you felt the need to comment on their holy places...
Click to expand...

Commenting that Muslims stole the Holy Places from the Jews in the first place and foolishly and callously built Muslim Holy Places on top of Jewish Holy Places is not the same as understanding (or not understanding) what Islam is all about.

There is a 'disconnect' in here somewhere which you will probably have to address, in order for others to understand you, in this context.



> "..._You 'think' you know shit and I 'know' you don't!_"


I know many things.

I am ignorant about many things.

Like anyone else on the face of the planet.

I have no idea what you are referring to here but I am comforted by the idea that you probably have no idea what you are referring to, either.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Commenting that Muslims stole the Holy Places from the Jews in the first place and foolishly and callously built Muslim Holy Places on top of Jewish Holy Places is not the same as understanding (or not understanding) what Islam is all about.


That wasn't my point.



Kondor3 said:


> There is a 'disconnect' in here somewhere which you will probably have to address, in order for others to understand you, in this context.


The problem is not with me.  But since I have to "dumb down" my point, just so you'll understand it, I'll say it another way...

..."having you comment on muslim holy places, is like interviewing a KKK guy during black history month".

Why would anyone ask a racist, arrogant, narcisstic prick, serious questions about the group he hates and expect an honest answer?



Kondor3 said:


> I know many things.
> 
> I am ignorant about many things.
> 
> Like anyone else on the face of the planet.
> 
> I have no idea what you are referring to here but I am comforted by the idea that you probably have no idea what you are referring to, either.


I know what my point was and judging from your response, I know you didn't.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commenting that Muslims stole the Holy Places from the Jews in the first place and foolishly and callously built Muslim Holy Places on top of Jewish Holy Places is not the same as understanding (or not understanding) what Islam is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't my point.
Click to expand...

No, but it was mine; the point I was making when I served-up my original comment.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 'disconnect' in here somewhere which you will probably have to address, in order for others to understand you, in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not with me...
Click to expand...

The problem is always with you.



Billo_Really said:


> _But since I have to 'dumb down' my point, just so you'll understand it, I'll say it another way_...


Much of this difficulty could be resolved if you were sober more often.



Billo_Really said:


> "..._having you comment on muslim holy places, is like interviewing a KKK guy during black history month_..."


Thank you for your feedback; although it does not address the accusation that the Muslims stole the Temple Mount from the Jews and foolishly and callously built their bullshit Holy Places on top of the ruins of the Jews earlier and legitimate Holy Places.



> "..._Why would anyone ask a racist, arrogant, narcisstic prick, serious questions about the group he hates and expect an honest answer?_..."


I dunno.

I give up.

Why *WOULD* pro-Israeli advocates ask you serious questions about the Israelis and expect an honest answer?


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's pretty stupid is Billo claiming that Jews declaring the Western Wall as 'theirs' had or could have any relation to 'seizing Muslim holy places' - the Wall was never in any way 'holy' to Muslims.
> 
> OTOH, many times during the Ottoman control of Israel, Jews were not allowed to enter the Jewish holy sites - and when Jordan illegally seized East Jerusalem, they ethnically cleansed the Jews from their homes in EJ AND denied all Jews (not just Israelis) any access to the Wall OR any other Jewish holy site under Jordanian control.
> 
> And there's also a small matter of the 28,000 grave markers removed from the historic Mt of Olives cemetery - and used as paving stones by the Jordanians.
> 
> Then there's the Muslim attacks on Jewish sites which are also allegedly holy to Muslims - like the Tomb of the Patriarchs.
> 
> 
> 
> According to racist pricks like you, muslims have no land, no humanity, no history, no reason to live and no holy places.
> 
> As human beings go, you're pretty fucked!
Click to expand...

That's funny... you are perceived in much the same way, in many quarters.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a rat's ass what Islam is about?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did, since you felt the need to comment on their holy places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although, if you are a Western non-Muslim, there's a good chance that I've done (and mastered) more reading on the subject than you, or am at least sufficiently well-versed to deflect such an accusation, easily.
> 
> Not that the charge made any sense, in the context in which you served it up.
> 
> But why should you shift gears now and suddenly begin making sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "think" you know shit and I "know" you don't!
Click to expand...






 Strange how islams alleged "holy places" only became holy what it looked like the Jews would be given Jerusalem as part of the new Israel. Before this they were derelict and hardly used by the majority of muslims. I remember having the same argument with a muslim some years back who stated that the dome of the rock and the al aqsa mosque had stood in splendour for 1400 years. That was until I showed him that they had both been rebuilt at least 3 times after they were demolished by earthquakes. It was only holy for a period of 17 months before Mohamed conquered Mecca and made that the qibla


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Do you not realize that proves they were _"seizing control of Muslim holy places"?_  And that was the flashpoint of the riot."
> 
> 
> 
> Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized _Jewish_ holy places.
> 
> What goes around comes around.
> 
> It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.
> 
> Enjoy.
Click to expand...


Get over it...The Jews built their Temple on the ruins of another Moon God Baal...that ancient mount site had many moon gods residing there...its just a pile of dirt that was also used as a garbage dump.

Peace is more important than mythology!


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Do you not realize that proves they were _"seizing control of Muslim holy places"?_  And that was the flashpoint of the riot."
> 
> 
> 
> Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized _Jewish_ holy places.
> 
> What goes around comes around.
> 
> It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get over it...
Click to expand...

Something tells me that neither side is willing to 'get over it'.



> "..._The Jews built their Temple on the ruins of another Moon God Baal...that ancient mount site had many moon gods residing there_..."


Doesn't matter. The Jews have seen it as their own for 3000 years or more.



> "...i_ts just a pile of dirt that was also used as a garbage dump_..."


Just a pile of dirt to you. Sacred Ground, to others.



> "..._Peace is more important than mythology!_"


Neither Jews nor Muslims consider their faith to be 'mythology'.

And both are willing to fight to defend their Holy Places and their related rights of control, ownership and access.


----------



## Art__Allm

ForeverYoung436 said:


> I agree that Israel won't expel the Palestinians.  The world is too obsessed by the Israel/Palestine conflict to let that happen.



If there was no Israel Lobby in the USA, Zionists would be sued in Den Haag.
Because of the influence of the Israel Lobby in the USA, Zionists can get away with their ethnic cleansing, land theft and apartheid.



ForeverYoung436 said:


> On the other hand, Russia could expel all the Chechens, and the world wouldn't blink an eye.



Total BS! All Chechens are Russian citizens, and they have the same rights like any other Russian citizens. 
They can live in Moscow or in Grozny, and they can be elected to Russian parliament.

In Israel, Palestinians are second class people and the expelled Palestinians are not permitted to return to their homes.


----------



## Art__Allm

Phoenall said:


> What were the arab's doing in Jewish homes in the first place ?



What Jewish homes are you talking about?


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> What were the arab's doing in Jewish homes in the first place ?   Was it because they had stolen the property of the Jews because the Jews were better builders.
> 
> Remember the dhimmi and sharia laws that forbid non muslims from having better houses than the muslims.



You have no evidence that all the Arabs kicked out of their homes in Israel and the West Bank were living in "Jewish" homes.


----------



## Indeependent

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the arab's doing in Jewish homes in the first place ?   Was it because they had stolen the property of the Jews because the Jews were better builders.
> 
> Remember the dhimmi and sharia laws that forbid non muslims from having better houses than the muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence that all the Arabs kicked out of their homes in Israel and the West Bank were living in "Jewish" homes.
Click to expand...


If you put your ear real close to a house in Israel, you will hear it say, "Oy!".


----------



## ForeverYoung436

MHunterB said:


> What's pretty stupid is Billo claiming that Jews declaring the Western Wall as 'theirs' had or could have any relation to 'seizing Muslim holy places' - the Wall was never in any way 'holy' to Muslims.
> 
> OTOH, many times during the Ottoman control of Israel, Jews were not allowed to enter the Jewish holy sites - and when Jordan illegally seized East Jerusalem, they ethnically cleansed the Jews from their homes in EJ AND denied all Jews (not just Israelis) any access to the Wall OR any other Jewish holy site under Jordanian control.
> 
> And there's also a small matter of the 28,000 grave markers removed from the historic Mt of Olives cemetery - and used as paving stones by the Jordanians.
> 
> Then there's the Muslim attacks on Jewish sites which are also allegedly holy to Muslims - like the Tomb of the Patriarchs.



Arabs/Muslims destroyed Joseph's Tomb several times.  They tried to attack Rachel's Tomb, forcing Israel to build an ugly fortress over the beautiful dome.  They forbade Jews from praying in Abraham's Tomb for 700 years.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I agree, that you tend to twist and distort the intent of the Armistice Line.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As may be usual, only half the story is told.  For all intense and purposes, Armistice Lines are handled exactly the same as other lines of demarcation.  The only difference is the temporal nature and termination on a Peace Accord.  In terms of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Armistice Line has all the characteristics of a border, until such time as a Peace Accord makes it obsolete.
> 
> There are two important aspects to keep in mind in terms of the universal recognition of the delineation and demarcation of both Israel and Palestine (each as States).
> 
> *FIRST:*  The international view:
> 
> 
> 
> *SECOND:*  The Palestinian View:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian, and other maps of Palestine in the ME, do not show the non border armistice lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you show that disgusting map, without Israel on it?
Click to expand...


It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian, and other maps of Palestine in the ME, do not show the non border armistice lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you show that disgusting map, without Israel on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.
Click to expand...


Lol you're delusional and living on another planet


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you show that disgusting map, without Israel on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol you're delusional and living on another planet
Click to expand...


Not at all. That is the map of Palestine without the armistice lines that are specifically not borders.


----------



## Sally

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you show that disgusting map, without Israel on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol you're delusional and living on another planet
Click to expand...


I am just wondering if Mr. Tinmore would do us all a favor and translate the Arabic on the map into English.


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you show that disgusting map, without Israel on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol you're delusional and living on another planet
Click to expand...



it is the logo for the "Palestine Liberation Organization" permanent observer mission of palestine to the united nations


----------



## Indeependent

Sally said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you're delusional and living on another planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just wondering if Mr. Tinmore would do us all a favor and translate the Arabic on the map into English.
Click to expand...


"Kill the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!".


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy. If a line is not a border it need not be on the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you're delusional and living on another planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. That is the map of Palestine without the armistice lines that are specifically not borders.
Click to expand...


What about Israels internationally recognized borders with two countries that were signed After the armistice agreements?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you're delusional and living on another planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. That is the map of Palestine without the armistice lines that are specifically not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Israels internationally recognized borders with two countries that were signed After the armistice agreements?
Click to expand...


Good question.

What about Palestine's 25 year old international borders in the same place?


----------



## Ropey

Just an update pls. 

Has pbel bowed yet?

Or is he still playing that violin string-less?


----------



## pbel

Ropey said:


> Just an update pls.
> 
> Has pbel bowed yet?
> 
> Or is he still playing that violin string-less?



Not yet!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. That is the map of Palestine without the armistice lines that are specifically not borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about Israels internationally recognized borders with two countries that were signed After the armistice agreements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> What about Palestine's 25 year old international borders in the same place?
Click to expand...






That only exist in the fantasy world of some Palestinian author and your tiny brain. The treaties you both cite do not specifically say Palestine do they, they don't even imply Palestine. In matter of fact Palestine is omitted deliberately because it would cause problems for the Islamic nations created from the land of palestine


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, toastman, _et al,_

Yes it is a good question.

The UN, and the Arab League, "consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end."  They consider "the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital."  Jointly, they agree the Arab States, including Palestine, should "enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;" with the goal of establishing "normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace." 



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about Israels internationally recognized borders with two countries that were signed After the armistice agreements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> What about Palestine's 25 year old international borders in the same place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only exist in the fantasy world of some Palestinian author and your tiny brain. The treaties you both cite do not specifically say Palestine do they, they don't even imply Palestine. In matter of fact Palestine is omitted deliberately because it would cause problems for the Islamic nations created from the land of palestine
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

To this end, the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) was established in 1994 in Gaza in order to follow up on the implementation of the Interim Agreement signed between Israel and the PLO."  The Palestinian position "IS" --->



			
				PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) said:
			
		

> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> 
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> 
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.​
> *3. International Law*
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that [a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calls for the [w]ithdrawal of
> Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
> 
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.​
> *4. Our Position*
> 
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
> 
> *Borders:*
> 
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​
> *SOURCE:* Official Website PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)



This position conforms with the official position taken by the Summit-level Council of the League of Arab States Fourteenth regular session, Beirut, Lebanon, 27 and 28 March 2002.  

Now, like our friend "PF Tinmore," there are radical factions inside the Palestinian cause that pursue another agenda and disagree with the PA/PLO, the NAD and Arab League position, and consider the HAMAS position (unrecognized by the greater communities) as the more authentic political position.  This is a domestic discord that needs to be resolved internally - by them.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rocco,

All of that smoke does not answer my question.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, in two places, specifically stated that the land of the Negev was Palestine as of 1949. This was after resolution 181, after the foreigners declared the state of Israel inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the 1948 war.

Nobody has posted anything proving this to be incorrect.

Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel.

There is a lot of say so on this issue, but nothing to document this say so.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> All of that smoke does not answer my question.
> 
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, in two places, specifically stated that the land of the Negev was Palestine as of 1949. This was after resolution 181, after the foreigners declared the state of Israel inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything proving this to be incorrect.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel.
> 
> There is a lot of say so on this issue, but nothing to document this say so.



We have documents that shows Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You cant argue those. 

You keep saying that no one has posted any documents to prove you incorrect. The proble. Is, nothing you said is correct. The land of the Negev is Israels, as it is inside the green line. Second, the whole Palestine never ceded land to Israel is complete bs that YOU MADE UP. Where did you read that Palestine has to ced land to Israel? You keep itnoring this question.When did this become a real estate issue? 
You are living on an alternate planet and you keep claiming youprpved this and that when in reality you proved nothing. Also you keep bringing up the same crP that has no merit at all.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> All of that smoke does not answer my question.
> 
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, in two places, specifically stated that the land of the Negev was Palestine as of 1949. This was after resolution 181, after the foreigners declared the state of Israel inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything proving this to be incorrect.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel.
> 
> There is a lot of say so on this issue, but nothing to document this say so.







 Just as you have not produced one legal document that shows the nation of Palestine ever existed before 1988. The mandate made it clear that Palestine was not a bona fide nation and that the two groups were asked to form governments on the proposed partition of the land of Palestine. The Jews both indigenous and migrant formed a government and declared independence on May 14 1948 in accordance with International law. The arabs both indigenous and migrant declined the offer and chose war instead believing that any land they won would be spoils of war. The Palestinians did not own the land legally so did not need to cede it to anyone, as proven when Jordan stole their allocated land and annexed it as part of Jordan. The Palestinians were given Jordanian nationality and were happy with the situation. Then in 1967 Jordan lost its illegally gained land to Israel who turned it into a defensive barrier in line with the Geneva conventions. So as you can see at no time until 1988 was the land ever arab palestine


----------



## toastman

Also, im postind on my phone so excuse the typos


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> All of that smoke does not answer my question.
> 
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, in two places, specifically stated that the land of the Negev was Palestine as of 1949. This was after resolution 181, after the foreigners declared the state of Israel inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything proving this to be incorrect.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel.
> 
> There is a lot of say so on this issue, but nothing to document this say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have documents that shows Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You cant argue those.
> 
> You keep saying that no one has posted any documents to prove you incorrect. The proble. Is, nothing you said is correct. *The land of the Negev is Israels, as it is inside the green line.* Second, the whole Palestine never ceded land to Israel is complete bs that YOU MADE UP. Where did you read that Palestine has to ced land to Israel? You keep itnoring this question.When did this become a real estate issue?
> You are living on an alternate planet and you keep claiming youprpved this and that when in reality you proved nothing. Also you keep bringing up the same crP that has no merit at all.
Click to expand...




> Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace *in Palestine,* to negotiate an armistice;
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949





> The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to *permanent peace in Palestine,...*
> 
> 2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier. *
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



And here is your Green Line.



> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



Where does it say that anything is Israel?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> All of that smoke does not answer my question.
> 
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, in two places, specifically stated that the land of the Negev was Palestine as of 1949. This was after resolution 181, after the foreigners declared the state of Israel inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything proving this to be incorrect.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel.
> 
> There is a lot of say so on this issue, but nothing to document this say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have documents that shows Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You cant argue those.
> 
> You keep saying that no one has posted any documents to prove you incorrect. The proble. Is, nothing you said is correct. *The land of the Negev is Israels, as it is inside the green line.* Second, the whole Palestine never ceded land to Israel is complete bs that YOU MADE UP. Where did you read that Palestine has to ced land to Israel? You keep itnoring this question.When did this become a real estate issue?
> You are living on an alternate planet and you keep claiming youprpved this and that when in reality you proved nothing. Also you keep bringing up the same crP that has no merit at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to *permanent peace in Palestine,...*
> 
> 2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier. *
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is your Green Line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that anything is Israel?
Click to expand...


What does that hve to do with anything? The armistice agreements were between Israel and those four countries. By bringing up that Israel was not mentioned in this agreements what are you trying to say?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have documents that shows Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You cant argue those.
> 
> You keep saying that no one has posted any documents to prove you incorrect. The proble. Is, nothing you said is correct. *The land of the Negev is Israels, as it is inside the green line.* Second, the whole Palestine never ceded land to Israel is complete bs that YOU MADE UP. Where did you read that Palestine has to ced land to Israel? You keep itnoring this question.When did this become a real estate issue?
> You are living on an alternate planet and you keep claiming youprpved this and that when in reality you proved nothing. Also you keep bringing up the same crP that has no merit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your Green Line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that anything is Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that hve to do with anything? The armistice agreements were between Israel and those four countries. By bringing up that Israel was not mentioned in this agreements what are you trying to say?
Click to expand...


It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.

What part of that confuses you?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your Green Line.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that anything is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that hve to do with anything? The armistice agreements were between Israel and those four countries. By bringing up that Israel was not mentioned in this agreements what are you trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.
> 
> What part of that confuses you?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by it?
Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries. 
I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that hve to do with anything? The armistice agreements were between Israel and those four countries. By bringing up that Israel was not mentioned in this agreements what are you trying to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.
> 
> What part of that confuses you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by it?
> Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries.
> I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements
Click to expand...


The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.
> 
> What part of that confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by it?
> Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries.
> I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.
Click to expand...


Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT? 
I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by it?
> Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries.
> I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT?
> I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.
Click to expand...


Do you really want to get confused?

The West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory. (OPT) The Green Line ('67 borders) is the de facto western border that is up for negotiations. What is the de jure western border?


----------



## toastman

You didnt answer my question


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by it?
> Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries.
> I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT?
> I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. *But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.*
Click to expand...


That is correct. The Green Line is specifically not to be a border.

Palestine is separated from its neighbors by international borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> You didnt answer my question



What is Palestine? Good question.

Post war treaties called it a state.

The Mandate called it a country.

The British called it a legal entity.

The UN just called it Palestine and referenced its international borders.

The Palestinians declared an independent state in 1948. As the native population inside a defined territory they had the right to do so. This was before it officially became occupied in 1949.

A state exists separate from recognition by other states. ~ Montevideo Conference

A state does not cease to exist when it is under occupation ~ Stimpson Doctrine

Everything I have seen says that it is a state under occupation.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "...Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel..."


What Palestinian government existed at the time the land was acquired, which could have ceded or chosen not to cede?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt answer my question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Palestine? Good question.
> 
> Post war treaties called it a state.
> 
> The Mandate called it a country.
> 
> The British called it a legal entity.
> 
> The UN just called it Palestine and referenced its international borders.
> 
> The Palestinians declared an independent state in 1948. As the native population inside a defined territory they had the right to do so. This was before it officially became occupied in 1949.
> 
> A state exists separate from recognition by other states. ~ Montevideo Conference
> 
> A state does not cease to exist when it is under occupation ~ Stimpson Doctrine
> 
> Everything I have seen says that it is a state under occupation.
Click to expand...


Maybe thats what YOU see (I doubt that though) but in reality all the land inside the green line is Israels land. Not Palestines. In fact even the PLO recognizes Israel insixe the green line.
Once again you keep bringing up these useless quotes or whag not and you manage to twist them into the conclusion that YOU want


----------



## toastman

And Palestine did NOT officially declare independence in 1948, as the land had already been declared independent by Israel. That is another one of your lies. Their official DOI took place in 1988. These facts are not up for debate. BTW where does it say that Palestine was occupied in 1949? What land was occupied and by whom?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> All of that smoke does not answer my question.
> 
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, in two places, specifically stated that the land of the Negev was Palestine as of 1949. This was after resolution 181, after the foreigners declared the state of Israel inside Palestine, after the end of the mandate, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything proving this to be incorrect.
> 
> Nobody has posted anything showing an agreement where Palestine ceded this land to Israel.
> 
> There is a lot of say so on this issue, but nothing to document this say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have documents that shows Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. You cant argue those.
> 
> You keep saying that no one has posted any documents to prove you incorrect. The proble. Is, nothing you said is correct. *The land of the Negev is Israels, as it is inside the green line.* Second, the whole Palestine never ceded land to Israel is complete bs that YOU MADE UP. Where did you read that Palestine has to ced land to Israel? You keep itnoring this question.When did this become a real estate issue?
> You are living on an alternate planet and you keep claiming youprpved this and that when in reality you proved nothing. Also you keep bringing up the same crP that has no merit at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to *permanent peace in Palestine,...*
> 
> 2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier. *
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is your Green Line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...*
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that anything is Israel?
Click to expand...







In the UN charter and many of the UN resolutions, starting with 181 that was an either/or implementation.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is your Green Line.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that anything is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that hve to do with anything? The armistice agreements were between Israel and those four countries. By bringing up that Israel was not mentioned in this agreements what are you trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.
> 
> What part of that confuses you?
Click to expand...






 Correct Palestine the place, not Palestine the nation.   What confuses you about that.
 In 1919 Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were also Palestine,


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.
> 
> What part of that confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by it?
> Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries.
> I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.
Click to expand...





 Unless Palestine decides to enter into those wars and then it does. Which is what has happened in every war there has been with israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT?
> I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really want to get confused?
> 
> The West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory. (OPT) The Green Line ('67 borders) is the de facto western border that is up for negotiations. What is the de jure western border?
Click to expand...






 No '67 borders were ever put in place by any international decree.

 And whose western borders do you mean, Israels or the west bank ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT?
> I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. *But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct. The Green Line is specifically not to be a border.
> 
> Palestine is separated from its neighbors by international borders.
Click to expand...






 Then were are the treaties signed by Palestine setting up those borders, and in which year were they drawn up agreed and signed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt answer my question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Palestine? Good question.
> 
> Post war treaties called it a state.
> 
> The Mandate called it a country.
> 
> The British called it a legal entity.
> 
> The UN just called it Palestine and referenced its international borders.
> 
> The Palestinians declared an independent state in 1948. As the native population inside a defined territory they had the right to do so. This was before it officially became occupied in 1949.
> 
> A state exists separate from recognition by other states. ~ Montevideo Conference
> 
> A state does not cease to exist when it is under occupation ~ Stimpson Doctrine
> 
> Everything I have seen says that it is a state under occupation.
Click to expand...






 So what was its capital, GDP, currency, International dialing prefix, language etc.

 They tried to usurp an already existing sovereign nation by doing so and their declaration was not accepted. They have had the time to make new declarations and it was only in 1988 that they realised that they had no chance of gaining Israel by war so tried another tack. As far as the arab league and everyone else is concerned Palestine the fledgling nation did not exist until 1988, before that it was a place on the map of the M.E.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What did it mean when you said "Palestine" in 1947 and 1949?



P F Tinmore said:


> It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.
> 
> What part of that confuses you?


*(COMMENT)*

You can twist and argue the Phrasing all you want; it doesn't change the meaning.  Everyone, in the decision making process, understands what the boundaries are, and what the standing treaties mean.

The treaties between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt (Article II - permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) and Jordan [Annex I (a) - ISRAEL-JORDAN INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY DELIMITATION AND DEMARCATION] supersede the Armistice Agreements.  And they outline the borders between Israel and Egypt, as well as Israel and Jordan.  Treaties are the toughest and firmest kind of boundary delimitation.

No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.  That is not even a dispute.

The status of the "Blue Line" (Israel-Lebanon) is discussed in the Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Security Council resolution 1559 (2004).  

You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary; still subject to negotiation.  It is none-the-less treated as a demarcation with international recognition and protection under the same principals of law as an a permanent boundary (A/RES/25/2625 - Paragraph 1 - Solumn Proclamation - fifth clause) ("Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.")

I fail to see how you make your point.  The term "Palestine" was used to describe the Mandate for Palestine, dating back to the original "Order in Council;" (Part I - Paragraph 1).  The "State of Palestine" did not come into existence until November 1988 on its Declaration of Independence.  The Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) is defined by the UN, the Arab League, and the Quartet as stated by the Sole Representatives of the Palestinian People: *"the 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."*

*(SUMMARY)*

Under the "progressive development and codification" of the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States:

Palestine is a State as of Declaration in 1988; "pursuant to the *resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences* and on the basis of the *international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*;" with the solemn duty to adhere to:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
You may not agree, but that is the reality _(unflavored - unvarnished)_.  You may argue a dispute, but your position flies in the face of even the Arab League and the Palestinian.

The UN Recognizes the boundary.  (Documented)
The Arab League Recognizes the boundary.  (Documented)
The Sole Representative of the Palestinian People, who declared independence, recognize the boundary.  (Documented)

What level of proof do you need?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Why the Bedouin?s Claims to the Negev Are Outrageous - The Tower - The Tower
The Negev: An Undisputable Part of Israel's Past and Present | United with Israel
Report Debunks Bedouin Land Claims in the Negev - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News
Are the Negev Bedouin an Indigenous People?: Fabricating Palestinian History :: Middle East Quarterly

a bit more perspective


----------



## proudveteran06

pbel said:


> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
Click to expand...


Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"


----------



## Victory67

proudveteran06 said:


> Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"



The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.

There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.


----------



## proudveteran06

Victory67 said:


> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.
> 
> There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.
Click to expand...


Tell us please what " proposals" have been presented  by the PA that Israel has turned down


----------



## Kondor3

proudveteran06 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.
> 
> There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us please what " proposals" have been presented  by the PA that Israel has turned down
Click to expand...

Minor detail.

And, by now, after Intifada I and II, and the Gaza War, it may be too late for any of that shit, anyway. Time will tell us about that, as well.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...



There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.

There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.



Israel signed two different agreements saying that land is Palestine.

Who am I to argue?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel signed two different agreements saying that land is Palestine.
> 
> Who am I to argue?
Click to expand...


The Negev is Israeli territory. Argue all you want but it wont change anything


----------



## Victory67

P F Tinmore said:


> There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.



The West Bank border is the 1949 Armistice Line between Jordan and Israel.

The Palestinians have inherited this Armistice Line from the Jordanians in 1988 when Jordan gave over all negotiating rights for the West Bank to the PLO.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.
Click to expand...


You need to go back to your history books


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.
> 
> There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.
Click to expand...





 So what about the Jews right of return to lands within gaza and the west bank. Do you think that the world would be in an uproar if Israel declared that once a peace deal was signed they would expel all muslims from their lands, as declared by the P.A. in their dealings with Jews in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.
Click to expand...





Semantics wont work as in 1949 the UN brokered a cease fire and set up armistice lines that separated Israel from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Because Egypt occupied the gaza strip and Jordan occupied the west bank they were the signatories to these treaties on behalf of the inhabitants of the lands they occupied. Because no state of Palestine existed before 1988 there was no need for the Palestinians to be a party of this.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel signed two different agreements saying that land is Palestine.
> 
> Who am I to argue?
Click to expand...






 Evidence from a reputable source please


----------



## Hossfly

proudveteran06 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloodrock44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"
Click to expand...

The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return
by Alexander Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky
Forbes
February 24, 2014

The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum

The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum Print Send item to friend :: Middle East Forum Send Middle East Forum :: Writings RSS Share: http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.meforum.org/3762/palestinian-right-of-return https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?so...e+Politics+of+the+Palestinian+Right+of+Return The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik....meforum.org/3762/palestinian-right-of-return 
http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik....meforum.org/3762/palestinian-right-of-return  Be the first of your friends to like this.
US-backed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are entering a critical period. With reports suggesting Israeli acceptance of the 1967 lines and land swaps, what about Palestinian concessions? Two issues are paramount: the 'right of return' and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently stated, "Let me put it simply: the right of return is a personal decision. What does this mean? That neither the PA, nor the state, nor the PLO, nor Abu-Mazen [Abbas], nor any Palestinian or Arab leader has the right to deprive someone from his right to return."


This arch in the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem features a giant key, symbolizing keys kept as mementos by many of the Palestinians who left their homes in 1948. (Image source: Reham Alhelsi/Flickr)



Jamil Mizer, a member of the political bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) underscored the issue saying, "there is talk about the liquidation of the Palestinian refugee cause, the return of hundreds of thousands to the lands occupied in 1948, and the dismantling of the right of return of over six million Palestinian refugees in the camps, in exile and in the diaspora, who are waiting for their moment to return to the homes and lands from which they were expelled".


The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized _Jewish_ holy places.
> 
> What goes around comes around.
> 
> It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get over it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something tells me that neither side is willing to 'get over it'.
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter. The Jews have seen it as their own for 3000 years or more.
> 
> 
> 
> "...i_ts just a pile of dirt that was also used as a garbage dump_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a pile of dirt to you. Sacred Ground, to others.
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Peace is more important than mythology!_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Jews nor Muslims consider their faith to be 'mythology'.
> 
> And both are willing to fight to defend their Holy Places and their related rights of control, ownership and access.
Click to expand...


I don't think the Jews had any Temple on those grounds anywhere near 3,000 years...provide a link, thanks in advance...

As far a sacred ground, as I posted earlier, the Canaanite god Baal had its Temple there along with many moon gods before it...If anything the Muslims respected Judaism, cleaned up the garbage dump it was used for and restored what you said sacred by building a Temple to their god...

As an aside, the last Temple was built by a converted Jew Herod who the Jews hated with Roman Taxes and engineering, that's why the wall still stands.

On the last issue, I agree...when religion mixes with Politics the end is usually a trip to their heaven, that's what's in store if they don't both compromise and live together.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to go back to your history books
Click to expand...


What did I post that is incorrect?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return".  Translation ; No " Palestinian state"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.
> 
> There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the Jews right of return to lands within gaza and the west bank. Do you think that the world would be in an uproar if Israel declared that once a peace deal was signed they would expel all muslims from their lands, as declared by the P.A. in their dealings with Jews in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Its pretty clear that Israel would be accepted at all save her American arsenal...If you look at the reality of this whole affair its obvious that Western Imperialism trampled on the Arabs via Palestine...Israel should offer the 67 borders and hope it works...the long-term prognosis is WMD for all and devastating wars...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.
> 
> There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the Jews right of return to lands within gaza and the west bank. Do you think that the world would be in an uproar if Israel declared that once a peace deal was signed they would expel all muslims from their lands, as declared by the P.A. in their dealings with Jews in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that Israel would be accepted at all save her American arsenal...If you look at the reality of this whole affair its obvious that Western Imperialism trampled on the Arabs via Palestine...Israel should offer the 67 borders and hope it works...the long-term prognosis is WMD for all and devastating wars...
Click to expand...


Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders?? Is that what you just said?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the Jews right of return to lands within gaza and the west bank. Do you think that the world would be in an uproar if Israel declared that once a peace deal was signed they would expel all muslims from their lands, as declared by the P.A. in their dealings with Jews in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that Israel would be accepted at all save her American arsenal...If you look at the reality of this whole affair its obvious that Western Imperialism trampled on the Arabs via Palestine...Israel should offer the 67 borders and hope it works...the long-term prognosis is WMD for all and devastating wars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders?? Is that what you just said?
Click to expand...


yes, that's what the UN says as well...It may not be in her religious interests but it is in her strategic interests, if she desires acceptance and secure peace.


----------



## toastman

I really dont know what planet you are living on. How can anyone say that Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders? Its never going to happen and you know it. 
Neither is right of return or giving up sovereignty of East Jerusalem.
You need to wake up


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> I really dont know what planet you are living on. How can anyone say that Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders? Its never going to happen and you know it.
> Neither is right of return or giving up sovereignty of East Jerusalem.
> You need to wake up



Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really dont know what planet you are living on. How can anyone say that Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders? Its never going to happen and you know it.
> Neither is right of return or giving up sovereignty of East Jerusalem.
> You need to wake up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
Click to expand...


Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.

And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really dont know what planet you are living on. How can anyone say that Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders? Its never going to happen and you know it.
> Neither is right of return or giving up sovereignty of East Jerusalem.
> You need to wake up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.
> 
> And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.
Click to expand...


It is not my fault for your sophomoric view of history and the Economic Development of Nations...the future is easily predictable by the past...the economies Will grow in time along with the weaponry...mark my History.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.
> 
> There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to go back to your history books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I post that is incorrect?
Click to expand...




 There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon

 There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria

 There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt

 There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan

 Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly

 Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly

 That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel.  This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.
> 
> There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about the Jews right of return to lands within gaza and the west bank. Do you think that the world would be in an uproar if Israel declared that once a peace deal was signed they would expel all muslims from their lands, as declared by the P.A. in their dealings with Jews in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that Israel would be accepted at all save her American arsenal...If you look at the reality of this whole affair its obvious that Western Imperialism trampled on the Arabs via Palestine...Israel should offer the 67 borders and hope it works...the long-term prognosis is WMD for all and devastating wars...
Click to expand...





 What 67 borders would they be then, provide a link from a reputable source showing the existence of any 67 borders.  Even 242 does not state 67 borders but return of some of the land occupied once hostilities have ceased.  So how about the Palestinians agree to a halt in all hostilities for the allotted 12 months and then they will get the land back......


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that Israel would be accepted at all save her American arsenal...If you look at the reality of this whole affair its obvious that Western Imperialism trampled on the Arabs via Palestine...Israel should offer the 67 borders and hope it works...the long-term prognosis is WMD for all and devastating wars...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders?? Is that what you just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, that's what the UN says as well...It may not be in her religious interests but it is in her strategic interests, if she desires acceptance and secure peace.
Click to expand...





Were does the UN say this then, and be very careful about 242 if that is your source as it does not mention any 67 borders.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really dont know what planet you are living on. How can anyone say that Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders? Its never going to happen and you know it.
> Neither is right of return or giving up sovereignty of East Jerusalem.
> You need to wake up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
Click to expand...





Then the Islamic world can go to hell in a handcart, and the bible says that the Jews will survive the coming holocaust and her enemies will be destroyed.

If it does come to mutual destruction then the M.E will be inhospitable for the next 1 million years due to the fallout and islam will be destroyed completely in the process.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.
> 
> And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my fault for your sophomoric view of history and the Economic Development of Nations...the future is easily predictable by the past...the economies Will grow in time along with the weaponry...mark my History.
Click to expand...






 And Israel will always be at least 4 levels of sophistication ahead of the muslims in the weapons stakes. Iran is the closest rival and Israel could take them out in one raid, at the same time getting India to keep Pakistan busy till they can take out their nuclear weapons.

 Seems that you have learnt nothing from the past as Israel has defeated islam every time they have invaded, and given the Palestinians a bloody nose in the process. This is why the arab league has told the PLO to talk with Israel because it is sick and tired of getting destroyed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to go back to your history books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I post that is incorrect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
Click to expand...


You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.


----------



## laziale

> Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem



I think this good


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK, quit beating around the bush.  What is the specific point you are making.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I post that is incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

With the exception of the international recognition of the border between Lebanon and Israel, what it the issue you are driving at?

Make it plain.

v/r
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.
> 
> And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my fault for your sophomoric view of history and the Economic Development of Nations...the future is easily predictable by the past...the economies Will grow in time along with the weaponry...mark my History.
Click to expand...


Lol your views are extremely distorted


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I post that is incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
Click to expand...


What does what you said have to do with anything?? Youre bringing it up but youre not able to tell us what your point is


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, quit beating around the bush.  What is the specific point you are making.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the international recognition of the border between Lebanon and Israel, what it the issue you are driving at?
> 
> Make it plain.
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


This particular discussion started when I responded to one of your posts.

Perhaps you should follow it back. It may clear things up for you.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, quit beating around the bush.  What is the specific point you are making.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of the international recognition of the border between Lebanon and Israel, what it the issue you are driving at?
> 
> Make it plain.
> 
> v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This particular discussion started when I responded to one of your posts.
> 
> Perhaps you should follow it back. It may clear things up for you.
Click to expand...


Thats what I thought, no answer


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I post that is incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
Click to expand...


I believe Syria was involved in the Madrid Conference.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I post that is incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
Click to expand...





 Nope the borders are by mutual agreement and as such are Internationally recognised, the rest of your post was bullcrap  and LIES.


----------



## Phoenall

laziale said:


> Abbas says he won't make concessions on Jerusalem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this good
Click to expand...




 Then he will get no concessions on Jerusalem either, and will end up with nothing


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really dont know what planet you are living on. How can anyone say that Israel should offer to go back to the 67 borders? Its never going to happen and you know it.
> Neither is right of return or giving up sovereignty of East Jerusalem.
> You need to wake up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.
> 
> And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.
Click to expand...


Why would Israel be succumbing to anything? Sure, her pre-emotive strike against the Arab stick and stone armies produced an illegal occupation that everyone on this planet recognizes as un-just...

If Israel wants acceptance as a legitimate state she must withdraw from her conquering ways, we are in the 21 century not the 19th!


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like, I've told you a million times, it will take that for Israeli acceptance by the Islamic world, I know peace will not happen, I predict mutually assured destruction in the future, so does the bible's fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.
> 
> And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Israel be succumbing to anything? Sure, her pre-emotive strike against the Arab stick and stone armies produced an illegal occupation that everyone on this planet recognizes as un-just...
> 
> If Israel wants acceptance as a legitimate state she must withdraw from her conquering ways, we are in the 21 century not the 19th!
Click to expand...


They took the West Bank from Jordan after theh attacked Israel, not the other way around. Get your facts straight and stop lying


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, of course. The typical if Israel doesnt succumb to the demand of the Palestinians and  UN , they will be destroyed. Blah blah blah.
> 
> And again, if you really think that the 67 borders will give Israel acceptance, youre either full of shit, or youre underestimating the hatred of the Arab Muslim world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Israel be succumbing to anything? Sure, her pre-emotive strike against the Arab stick and stone armies produced an illegal occupation that everyone on this planet recognizes as un-just...
> 
> If Israel wants acceptance as a legitimate state she must withdraw from her conquering ways, we are in the 21 century not the 19th!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They took the West Bank from Jordan after theh attacked Israel, not the other way around. Get your facts straight and stop lying
Click to expand...

I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan...


----------



## toastman

Firing th first shot is not starting the war. 
Also, Jordan attacked Israel, when Jordan was not part of the war. So stop lying


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> That's funny... you are perceived in much the same way, in many quarters.


WTF are you talking about?

As persons go, I'm pretty kick-ass!


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan_..."


Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.

Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.

Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.

Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.

The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.

Vae victus.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and* took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> *
> Vae victus.
Click to expand...


The only problem with your assessment is that Jordan never legally annexed the West Bank. It said it did and it acted like it did but the rest of the world said no.

It was occupied Palestinian territory under Jordan and it is still occupied territory under Israel. The world still calls it Occupied Palestinian territory.

Even if Jordan lost the war the West Bank was not theirs to lose.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> 
> Vae victus.
Click to expand...


Pomp Victus das ass, no-ne has surrendered to Israel to date, and to make matters worse, not even her closest Allies recognize her Victus, she is basically de-legitimizing her-self as we speak..


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Firing th first shot is not starting the war.
> Also, Jordan attacked Israel, when Jordan was not part of the war. So stop lying



Back up your words with a link from an accepted neutral encyclopedia, finagling is not truth.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Israel be succumbing to anything? Sure, her pre-emotive strike against the Arab stick and stone armies produced an illegal occupation that everyone on this planet recognizes as un-just...
> 
> If Israel wants acceptance as a legitimate state she must withdraw from her conquering ways, we are in the 21 century not the 19th!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They took the West Bank from Jordan after theh attacked Israel, not the other way around. Get your facts straight and stop lying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan...
Click to expand...





You are the one that is wrong as the war started when Mohamed mass murdered the Jewish tribe in medina when they refused to throw themselves on the floor and worship him as God. So he placed eternal war and bloodshed in the Koran and it is practised to this day.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny... you are perceived in much the same way, in many quarters.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> As persons go, I'm pretty kick-ass!
Click to expand...






Problem is many got your ass and your face mixed up didn't they


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and* took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> *
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem with your assessment is that Jordan never legally annexed the West Bank. It said it did and it acted like it did but the rest of the world said no.
> 
> It was occupied Palestinian territory under Jordan and it is still occupied territory under Israel. The world still calls it Occupied Palestinian territory.
> 
> Even if Jordan lost the war the West Bank was not theirs to lose.
Click to expand...

Tinny, you're dealing with the difference between Paper Law and the Real World.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and* took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> *
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem with your assessment is that Jordan never legally annexed the West Bank. It said it did and it acted like it did but the rest of the world said no.
> 
> It was occupied Palestinian territory under Jordan and it is still occupied territory under Israel. The world still calls it Occupied Palestinian territory.
> 
> Even if Jordan lost the war the West Bank was not theirs to lose.
Click to expand...






 So not theirs to give away either to the Palestinians. So they have only gaza left then


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firing th first shot is not starting the war.
> Also, Jordan attacked Israel, when Jordan was not part of the war. So stop lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back up your words with a link from an accepted neutral encyclopedia, finagling is not truth.
Click to expand...


You need a link to tell you that Jordan attacked Israel first?

How do yoh not know these facts?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I think you ought to stop finagling the truth...A War was started by Israel not Jordan_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pomp Victus das ass, no-ne has surrendered to Israel to date...
Click to expand...

Nobody had to surrender to Israel.

The Jordanians merely had to obey the laws of gravity and to fall down in 1967 when the Israelis killed them.

The Jordanians merely had to run in 1967 when the Israelis drove them out.

The Palestinians merely had to stop resisting effectively, militarily, alongside the Jordanians in 1967, when the Israelis overwhelmed them.

Surrender is a minor point and of no particular consequence.

Overarching control is all that matters.

And Israel has overarching control... and has... since 1967.



> "..._and to make matters worse, not even her closest Allies recognize her Victus_..."


Doesn't matter, so long as Israel does.



> "..._she is basically de-legitimizing her-self as we speak_."


Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, as bad as all that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Somehow, I don't think they're overly worried about such things.

We've got their back... Obumble or no.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> 
> Vae victus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pomp Victus das ass, no-ne has surrendered to Israel to date...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody had to surrender to Israel.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to obey the laws of gravity and to fall down in 1967 when the Israelis killed them.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to run in 1967 when the Israelis drove them out.
> 
> The Palestinians merely had to stop resisting effectively, militarily, alongside the Jordanians in 1967, when the Israelis overwhelmed them.
> 
> Surrender is a minor point and of no particular consequence.
> 
> Overarching control is all that matters.
> 
> And Israel has overarching control... and has... since 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._and to make matters worse, not even her closest Allies recognize her Victus_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter, so long as Israel does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._she is basically de-legitimizing her-self as we speak_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, as bad as all that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
> 
> Somehow, *I don't think they're overly worried about such things.*
> We've got their back... Obumble or no.
Click to expand...

PressTV - Israel worries US boycott could go contagious

*Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars, saying other academic organizations in the United States could take similar action. *On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA), which has nearly 5,000 members, approved the academic boycott of Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinians, indicating that a movement to isolate the apartheid regime of Israel that is gaining momentum in Europe has also hit the US.

"The ASA condemns the United States' significant role in aiding and abetting Israel's violations of human rights against Palestinians and its occupation of Palestinian lands through its use of the veto in the UN Security Council," the organization said in a statement explaining the endorsement.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pomp Victus das ass, no-ne has surrendered to Israel to date...
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had to surrender to Israel.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to obey the laws of gravity and to fall down in 1967 when the Israelis killed them.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to run in 1967 when the Israelis drove them out.
> 
> The Palestinians merely had to stop resisting effectively, militarily, alongside the Jordanians in 1967, when the Israelis overwhelmed them.
> 
> Surrender is a minor point and of no particular consequence.
> 
> Overarching control is all that matters.
> 
> And Israel has overarching control... and has... since 1967.
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, so long as Israel does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._she is basically de-legitimizing her-self as we speak_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, as bad as all that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
> 
> Somehow, *I don't think they're overly worried about such things.*
> We've got their back... Obumble or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PressTV - Israel worries US boycott could go contagious
> 
> *Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars, saying other academic organizations in the United States could take similar action. *On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA), which has nearly 5,000 members, approved the academic boycott of Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinians, indicating that a movement to isolate the apartheid regime of Israel that is gaining momentum in Europe has also hit the US.
> 
> "The ASA condemns the United States' significant role in aiding and abetting Israel's violations of human rights against Palestinians and its occupation of Palestinian lands through its use of the veto in the UN Security Council," the organization said in a statement explaining the endorsement.
Click to expand...


Nearly three months old article.  Have you anything more recent?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars_..."


Wake me up when we stop selling Israel the necessities of life, or arms.

Until then, I think the Israelis can handle getting snubbed by a gaggle of pissant Arab ass-kissing academics.

Academics whose own home-bases (universities, etc.) are distancing themselves from their wayward self-righteous and pompous Arab ass-kissers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple Muslim-Arab neighbor-states of Israel acted upon faulty Soviet intelligence and declared general mobilizations and forward-deployed troops and war-assets along the borders of Israel in numbers sufficient to invade on a moment's notice.
> 
> Israel, in response, mobilized, and quickly undertook preemptive strikes at Muslim-Arab air force and other assets and targets, to ensure air superiority and to damage those assets before they could be used, in fulfillment of Nassar's public declaration of intent to attack.
> 
> Jordan was not attacked by Israel, nor was the West Bank, on Day One of the 1967 Six-Day War; as a matter of fact, the Israeli government pleaded with the Jordanians not do join in the attack.
> 
> Jordan chose to ignore those pleas and attacked Israel on Day Two, regardless.
> 
> The Israelis then proceeded to kick the Jordanians' asses and* took the West Bank and Jerusalem away from them as Spoils of War.
> *
> Vae victus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with your assessment is that Jordan never legally annexed the West Bank. It said it did and it acted like it did but the rest of the world said no.
> 
> It was occupied Palestinian territory under Jordan and it is still occupied territory under Israel. The world still calls it Occupied Palestinian territory.
> 
> Even if Jordan lost the war the West Bank was not theirs to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinny, you're dealing with the difference between Paper Law and the Real World.
Click to expand...


We are moving away from the wild west of international diplomacy to a more civilized world.

We are promoting the rule of law over the rule of the gun.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._We are moving away from the wild west of international diplomacy to a more civilized world_..."


Tell that to the Russians, and Vladimir Putin. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> "..._We are promoting the rule of law over the rule of the gun._"


Says the Losing Side in several wars that they started.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We are moving away from the wild west of international diplomacy to a more civilized world_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Russians, and Vladimir Putin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We are promoting the rule of law over the rule of the gun._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Losing Side in several wars that they started.
Click to expand...


It all started when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.


----------



## Indeependent

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had to surrender to Israel.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to obey the laws of gravity and to fall down in 1967 when the Israelis killed them.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to run in 1967 when the Israelis drove them out.
> 
> The Palestinians merely had to stop resisting effectively, militarily, alongside the Jordanians in 1967, when the Israelis overwhelmed them.
> 
> Surrender is a minor point and of no particular consequence.
> 
> Overarching control is all that matters.
> 
> And Israel has overarching control... and has... since 1967.
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, so long as Israel does.
> 
> 
> Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, as bad as all that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
> 
> Somehow, *I don't think they're overly worried about such things.*
> We've got their back... Obumble or no.
> 
> 
> 
> PressTV - Israel worries US boycott could go contagious
> 
> *Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars, saying other academic organizations in the United States could take similar action. *On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA), which has nearly 5,000 members, approved the academic boycott of Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinians, indicating that a movement to isolate the apartheid regime of Israel that is gaining momentum in Europe has also hit the US.
> 
> "The ASA condemns the United States' significant role in aiding and abetting Israel's violations of human rights against Palestinians and its occupation of Palestinian lands through its use of the veto in the UN Security Council," the organization said in a statement explaining the endorsement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly three months old article.  Have you anything more recent?
Click to expand...


Forget the article, read the postings...Jew Zionists Must Die!
Now that's what I call an Objective Site!


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> PressTV - Israel worries US boycott could go contagious
> 
> *Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars, saying other academic organizations in the United States could take similar action. *On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA), which has nearly 5,000 members, approved the academic boycott of Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinians, indicating that a movement to isolate the apartheid regime of Israel that is gaining momentum in Europe has also hit the US.
> 
> "The ASA condemns the United States' significant role in aiding and abetting Israel's violations of human rights against Palestinians and its occupation of Palestinian lands through its use of the veto in the UN Security Council," the organization said in a statement explaining the endorsement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly three months old article.  Have you anything more recent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget the article, read the postings...Jew Zionists Must Die!
> Now that's what I call an Objective Site!
Click to expand...


That's not a good representation, others are varied...


siobhàn

Jan 9, 2014 11:25 AM

Since when has being Zionist...a race? That is new to me! Boycotting Israel, is NOT anti-Jewish. Also, I would like to add, that there are more than one Semitic group in the world, besides Jews. See Assyrians for an example..or heaven forbid, Palestinians..as all three are Semitic. Some clearly needs to study. 

Click to Rate ReplyRating6


Seanoamericanoin reply to siobhàn

2/25/2014 241 AM

When it comes to the zios I am proud to be anti semetic.

Click to Rate Rating0


JJ

Dec 22, 2013 8:31 PM

Jim W. Dean was writing about this the other day, righthere on Press T.V., about how the people that don't supportthe 'Apartheid Regime' of Israel are now branded as 'Leftists'. In fact anyone that doesn't agree with Israelis now called an 'Extreme Leftist'. Now this is quite oddsince the guys in Russia, like Lennin that murdered TheChristian Czar and his four young daughters and sonto install Communism (that's about as LEFT as you can get)were all Jewish(Lennin changed his name to conceal that) I could now write you a piece as long as this article,but Israel would just use it as a manual to do moresadistic things, so like a cook boils down gallons ofbeef stock to a few cups to make a rich sauce, I willcondense all my ideas down for you to a small amount,you ready? Here goes: ISRAEL GAME OVER !Have A Nice Day Iran !

Click to Rate ReplyRating9


Brit

Dec 19, 2013 11:31 AM

Boycott IsraHell.....we don't support Terrorists.

Click to Rate ReplyRating17


JJin reply to Brit

12/22/2013 8:34:01 PM

When someone uses the word 'Terrorist', I'm amazed theydon't have to pay 'Royalties' to Israel, since they inventedit. King David Hotel, all the terrorist attacks they havedone fills up a few web pages.

Click to Rate Rating11


Palestine

Dec 18, 2013 8:24 PM

Israel must leave palestine to the original Palestinian of all religions.including the old original jewish people whom lived and work with Palestinian Arabs or 1000 of years. There should be no room for a racist aoarthied imported zionist jews that demilish Palestinian home and build a place for themseleves. There is no room for criminals to commit crime and think that they will get away with it. It is just matter of time and that time will come.

Click to Rate ReplyRating31


JJin reply to Palestine

12/22/2013 8:46:21 PM

Remember the biggest enemy of The Zionist Apartheid Regine that is Israel and The Likud Party is.. The Truth. Press T.V. and others should document in video theatrocities that Israel commits against the people of Palestine and that video should be shown to the whole world, don't just tell them, let them see it. A Documentary needs to be made and as many people aspossible must be exposed to watching it. especiallyAmericans. 

Click to Rate Rating5


Peace

Dec 18, 2013 7:23 PM

Please help Canadian government to wake up.

Click to Rate ReplyRating27


Reza

Dec 18, 2013 7:17 PM

Israel is a snake and there are two ways to control a snake, cut off its head or get a mongoose.

Click to Rate ReplyRating37


mark

Dec 18, 2013 2:32 PM

Hopefully this will trigger a public debate which can only expose israel for what it is. Once the boycott ball starts rolling, everyone will have to join in to avoid criticism. They will then have to either retreat behind their wall or give the native population the vote, which will result in a rapid decline of donor-funded handouts to immigrant jews and, inevitably, an exodus by those who were only there for the freebies. 

Click to Rate ReplyRating35


N Smith

Dec 18, 2013 2:15 PM

What the Zios fail to understand they have been boycotted a long time ago,no one is feeding into their illusions and fairytales anymore.This is one of the reason they are now spying on indiviudals, to see and hear what is being discussed,they knew it was bad but never realised how much they are becoming despised globally, now China has virtually cut all ties with America even calling for De-Americanisation, the reality is America is Isreal.India is now in dispute with United States of Isreal.I could go on and on.Nethanyahu also knows his days or minutes are numbered, again another reason why he couldnt set foot in SA to attend Mandela funeral Mandela spirit would eat him alive maybe nuttyahoo has a conscience after all somewhere in his demented zionist brain. 

Click to Rate ReplyRating24


Al Quds

Dec 18, 2013 1:53 PM

Quote: "They have nothing but hopelessness and helplessness ahead of them and this feeling will grow day by day". THE Leader.

Click to Rate ReplyRating23


Ashrafin reply to Al Quds

12/18/2013 2:16:56 PM

......2 Al Quds........Yes, they have hopelessness and helplessness a head of them..........That is why, they are MORE DANGEROUS than EVER..........Remember, these savages are PURE EVIL ........& TERRORISM is their survival tool..........Or war and DECEPTIONS .........So the WORLD needs to be aware........& VERY vigilant......

Click to Rate Rating26


Lex

Dec 18, 2013 1:18 PM

Well the first step is to pull all your money out of the mainstream banks and deposit it into community banks.

Click to Rate ReplyRating37


Nick

Dec 18, 2013 1:15 PM

Get rid of israel as an exclusively zionist and jewish state. Rename it back to Palestine and give everyone an equal say and equal rights. This is the only way out. I don't think israhell will end its occupation, and even if so, it may still cause problems. The surest way to prevent it from doing so if it simply ceases to be israel and is a republic for all who currently live there, under EQUAL terms!

Click to Rate ReplyRating23


Faheem Z. Ch

Dec 18, 2013 12:4 PM

About time 

Click to Rate ReplyRating35


Bearnárd ó Donnabháin

Dec 18, 2013 12:1 PM

I support all Global boycotts against the racist, extremist, toxic, Cancerous, Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. Israel makes humanity look permanently bad. Viva Palestina !!!, from Eire/Republic of Ireland.

Click to Rate ReplyRating55


dekkers


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We are moving away from the wild west of international diplomacy to a more civilized world_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Russians, and Vladimir Putin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._We are promoting the rule of law over the rule of the gun._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Losing Side in several wars that they started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all started when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
Click to expand...


What does Zionists going to mandatory Palestine have to do with who started the war? 
You keep making this stupid comment like it means something. Mandatory Palestine didnt belong to the Palestinians during the time of the immigration, ak they had no say weather or not the Jews could come or not


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly three months old article.  Have you anything more recent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the article, read the postings...Jew Zionists Must Die!
> Now that's what I call an Objective Site!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a good representation, others are varied...
> 
> 
> siobhàn
> 
> Jan 9, 2014 11:25 AM
> 
> Since when has being Zionist...a race? That is new to me! Boycotting Israel, is NOT anti-Jewish. Also, I would like to add, that there are more than one Semitic group in the world, besides Jews. See Assyrians for an example..or heaven forbid, Palestinians..as all three are Semitic. Some clearly needs to study.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating6
> 
> 
> Seanoamericanoin reply to siobhàn
> 
> 2/25/2014 241 AM
> 
> When it comes to the zios I am proud to be anti semetic.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating0
> 
> 
> JJ
> 
> Dec 22, 2013 8:31 PM
> 
> Jim W. Dean was writing about this the other day, righthere on Press T.V., about how the people that don't supportthe 'Apartheid Regime' of Israel are now branded as 'Leftists'. In fact anyone that doesn't agree with Israelis now called an 'Extreme Leftist'. Now this is quite oddsince the guys in Russia, like Lennin that murdered TheChristian Czar and his four young daughters and sonto install Communism (that's about as LEFT as you can get)were all Jewish(Lennin changed his name to conceal that) I could now write you a piece as long as this article,but Israel would just use it as a manual to do moresadistic things, so like a cook boils down gallons ofbeef stock to a few cups to make a rich sauce, I willcondense all my ideas down for you to a small amount,you ready? Here goes: ISRAEL GAME OVER !Have A Nice Day Iran !
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating9
> 
> 
> Brit
> 
> Dec 19, 2013 11:31 AM
> 
> Boycott IsraHell.....we don't support Terrorists.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating17
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Brit
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:34:01 PM
> 
> When someone uses the word 'Terrorist', I'm amazed theydon't have to pay 'Royalties' to Israel, since they inventedit. King David Hotel, all the terrorist attacks they havedone fills up a few web pages.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating11
> 
> 
> Palestine
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 8:24 PM
> 
> Israel must leave palestine to the original Palestinian of all religions.including the old original jewish people whom lived and work with Palestinian Arabs or 1000 of years. There should be no room for a racist aoarthied imported zionist jews that demilish Palestinian home and build a place for themseleves. There is no room for criminals to commit crime and think that they will get away with it. It is just matter of time and that time will come.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating31
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Palestine
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:46:21 PM
> 
> Remember the biggest enemy of The Zionist Apartheid Regine that is Israel and The Likud Party is.. The Truth. Press T.V. and others should document in video theatrocities that Israel commits against the people of Palestine and that video should be shown to the whole world, don't just tell them, let them see it. A Documentary needs to be made and as many people aspossible must be exposed to watching it. especiallyAmericans.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating5
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:23 PM
> 
> Please help Canadian government to wake up.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating27
> 
> 
> Reza
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:17 PM
> 
> Israel is a snake and there are two ways to control a snake, cut off its head or get a mongoose.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> mark
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:32 PM
> 
> Hopefully this will trigger a public debate which can only expose israel for what it is. Once the boycott ball starts rolling, everyone will have to join in to avoid criticism. They will then have to either retreat behind their wall or give the native population the vote, which will result in a rapid decline of donor-funded handouts to immigrant jews and, inevitably, an exodus by those who were only there for the freebies.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> N Smith
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:15 PM
> 
> What the Zios fail to understand they have been boycotted a long time ago,no one is feeding into their illusions and fairytales anymore.This is one of the reason they are now spying on indiviudals, to see and hear what is being discussed,they knew it was bad but never realised how much they are becoming despised globally, now China has virtually cut all ties with America even calling for De-Americanisation, the reality is America is Isreal.India is now in dispute with United States of Isreal.I could go on and on.Nethanyahu also knows his days or minutes are numbered, again another reason why he couldnt set foot in SA to attend Mandela funeral Mandela spirit would eat him alive maybe nuttyahoo has a conscience after all somewhere in his demented zionist brain.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating24
> 
> 
> Al Quds
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:53 PM
> 
> Quote: "They have nothing but hopelessness and helplessness ahead of them and this feeling will grow day by day". THE Leader.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Ashrafin reply to Al Quds
> 
> 12/18/2013 2:16:56 PM
> 
> ......2 Al Quds........Yes, they have hopelessness and helplessness a head of them..........That is why, they are MORE DANGEROUS than EVER..........Remember, these savages are PURE EVIL ........& TERRORISM is their survival tool..........Or war and DECEPTIONS .........So the WORLD needs to be aware........& VERY vigilant......
> 
> Click to Rate Rating26
> 
> 
> Lex
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:18 PM
> 
> Well the first step is to pull all your money out of the mainstream banks and deposit it into community banks.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:15 PM
> 
> Get rid of israel as an exclusively zionist and jewish state. Rename it back to Palestine and give everyone an equal say and equal rights. This is the only way out. I don't think israhell will end its occupation, and even if so, it may still cause problems. The surest way to prevent it from doing so if it simply ceases to be israel and is a republic for all who currently live there, under EQUAL terms!
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Faheem Z. Ch
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:4 PM
> 
> About time
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> Bearnárd ó Donnabháin
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:1 PM
> 
> I support all Global boycotts against the racist, extremist, toxic, Cancerous, Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. Israel makes humanity look permanently bad. Viva Palestina !!!, from Eire/Republic of Ireland.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating55
> 
> 
> dekkers
Click to expand...


What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
Were those from PressTv.com??


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the article, read the postings...Jew Zionists Must Die!
> Now that's what I call an Objective Site!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a good representation, others are varied...
> 
> 
> siobhàn
> 
> Jan 9, 2014 11:25 AM
> 
> Since when has being Zionist...a race? That is new to me! Boycotting Israel, is NOT anti-Jewish. Also, I would like to add, that there are more than one Semitic group in the world, besides Jews. See Assyrians for an example..or heaven forbid, Palestinians..as all three are Semitic. Some clearly needs to study.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating6
> 
> 
> Seanoamericanoin reply to siobhàn
> 
> 2/25/2014 241 AM
> 
> When it comes to the zios I am proud to be anti semetic.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating0
> 
> 
> JJ
> 
> Dec 22, 2013 8:31 PM
> 
> Jim W. Dean was writing about this the other day, righthere on Press T.V., about how the people that don't supportthe 'Apartheid Regime' of Israel are now branded as 'Leftists'. In fact anyone that doesn't agree with Israelis now called an 'Extreme Leftist'. Now this is quite oddsince the guys in Russia, like Lennin that murdered TheChristian Czar and his four young daughters and sonto install Communism (that's about as LEFT as you can get)were all Jewish(Lennin changed his name to conceal that) I could now write you a piece as long as this article,but Israel would just use it as a manual to do moresadistic things, so like a cook boils down gallons ofbeef stock to a few cups to make a rich sauce, I willcondense all my ideas down for you to a small amount,you ready? Here goes: ISRAEL GAME OVER !Have A Nice Day Iran !
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating9
> 
> 
> Brit
> 
> Dec 19, 2013 11:31 AM
> 
> Boycott IsraHell.....we don't support Terrorists.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating17
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Brit
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:34:01 PM
> 
> When someone uses the word 'Terrorist', I'm amazed theydon't have to pay 'Royalties' to Israel, since they inventedit. King David Hotel, all the terrorist attacks they havedone fills up a few web pages.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating11
> 
> 
> Palestine
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 8:24 PM
> 
> Israel must leave palestine to the original Palestinian of all religions.including the old original jewish people whom lived and work with Palestinian Arabs or 1000 of years. There should be no room for a racist aoarthied imported zionist jews that demilish Palestinian home and build a place for themseleves. There is no room for criminals to commit crime and think that they will get away with it. It is just matter of time and that time will come.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating31
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Palestine
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:46:21 PM
> 
> Remember the biggest enemy of The Zionist Apartheid Regine that is Israel and The Likud Party is.. The Truth. Press T.V. and others should document in video theatrocities that Israel commits against the people of Palestine and that video should be shown to the whole world, don't just tell them, let them see it. A Documentary needs to be made and as many people aspossible must be exposed to watching it. especiallyAmericans.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating5
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:23 PM
> 
> Please help Canadian government to wake up.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating27
> 
> 
> Reza
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:17 PM
> 
> Israel is a snake and there are two ways to control a snake, cut off its head or get a mongoose.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> mark
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:32 PM
> 
> Hopefully this will trigger a public debate which can only expose israel for what it is. Once the boycott ball starts rolling, everyone will have to join in to avoid criticism. They will then have to either retreat behind their wall or give the native population the vote, which will result in a rapid decline of donor-funded handouts to immigrant jews and, inevitably, an exodus by those who were only there for the freebies.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> N Smith
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:15 PM
> 
> What the Zios fail to understand they have been boycotted a long time ago,no one is feeding into their illusions and fairytales anymore.This is one of the reason they are now spying on indiviudals, to see and hear what is being discussed,they knew it was bad but never realised how much they are becoming despised globally, now China has virtually cut all ties with America even calling for De-Americanisation, the reality is America is Isreal.India is now in dispute with United States of Isreal.I could go on and on.Nethanyahu also knows his days or minutes are numbered, again another reason why he couldnt set foot in SA to attend Mandela funeral Mandela spirit would eat him alive maybe nuttyahoo has a conscience after all somewhere in his demented zionist brain.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating24
> 
> 
> Al Quds
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:53 PM
> 
> Quote: "They have nothing but hopelessness and helplessness ahead of them and this feeling will grow day by day". THE Leader.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Ashrafin reply to Al Quds
> 
> 12/18/2013 2:16:56 PM
> 
> ......2 Al Quds........Yes, they have hopelessness and helplessness a head of them..........That is why, they are MORE DANGEROUS than EVER..........Remember, these savages are PURE EVIL ........& TERRORISM is their survival tool..........Or war and DECEPTIONS .........So the WORLD needs to be aware........& VERY vigilant......
> 
> Click to Rate Rating26
> 
> 
> Lex
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:18 PM
> 
> Well the first step is to pull all your money out of the mainstream banks and deposit it into community banks.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:15 PM
> 
> Get rid of israel as an exclusively zionist and jewish state. Rename it back to Palestine and give everyone an equal say and equal rights. This is the only way out. I don't think israhell will end its occupation, and even if so, it may still cause problems. The surest way to prevent it from doing so if it simply ceases to be israel and is a republic for all who currently live there, under EQUAL terms!
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Faheem Z. Ch
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:4 PM
> 
> About time
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> Bearnárd ó Donnabháin
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:1 PM
> 
> I support all Global boycotts against the racist, extremist, toxic, Cancerous, Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. Israel makes humanity look permanently bad. Viva Palestina !!!, from Eire/Republic of Ireland.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating55
> 
> 
> dekkers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
> Were those from PressTv.com??
Click to expand...


Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a good representation, others are varied...
> 
> 
> siobhàn
> 
> Jan 9, 2014 11:25 AM
> 
> Since when has being Zionist...a race? That is new to me! Boycotting Israel, is NOT anti-Jewish. Also, I would like to add, that there are more than one Semitic group in the world, besides Jews. See Assyrians for an example..or heaven forbid, Palestinians..as all three are Semitic. Some clearly needs to study.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating6
> 
> 
> Seanoamericanoin reply to siobhàn
> 
> 2/25/2014 241 AM
> 
> When it comes to the zios I am proud to be anti semetic.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating0
> 
> 
> JJ
> 
> Dec 22, 2013 8:31 PM
> 
> Jim W. Dean was writing about this the other day, righthere on Press T.V., about how the people that don't supportthe 'Apartheid Regime' of Israel are now branded as 'Leftists'. In fact anyone that doesn't agree with Israelis now called an 'Extreme Leftist'. Now this is quite oddsince the guys in Russia, like Lennin that murdered TheChristian Czar and his four young daughters and sonto install Communism (that's about as LEFT as you can get)were all Jewish(Lennin changed his name to conceal that) I could now write you a piece as long as this article,but Israel would just use it as a manual to do moresadistic things, so like a cook boils down gallons ofbeef stock to a few cups to make a rich sauce, I willcondense all my ideas down for you to a small amount,you ready? Here goes: ISRAEL GAME OVER !Have A Nice Day Iran !
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating9
> 
> 
> Brit
> 
> Dec 19, 2013 11:31 AM
> 
> Boycott IsraHell.....we don't support Terrorists.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating17
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Brit
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:34:01 PM
> 
> When someone uses the word 'Terrorist', I'm amazed theydon't have to pay 'Royalties' to Israel, since they inventedit. King David Hotel, all the terrorist attacks they havedone fills up a few web pages.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating11
> 
> 
> Palestine
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 8:24 PM
> 
> Israel must leave palestine to the original Palestinian of all religions.including the old original jewish people whom lived and work with Palestinian Arabs or 1000 of years. There should be no room for a racist aoarthied imported zionist jews that demilish Palestinian home and build a place for themseleves. There is no room for criminals to commit crime and think that they will get away with it. It is just matter of time and that time will come.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating31
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Palestine
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:46:21 PM
> 
> Remember the biggest enemy of The Zionist Apartheid Regine that is Israel and The Likud Party is.. The Truth. Press T.V. and others should document in video theatrocities that Israel commits against the people of Palestine and that video should be shown to the whole world, don't just tell them, let them see it. A Documentary needs to be made and as many people aspossible must be exposed to watching it. especiallyAmericans.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating5
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:23 PM
> 
> Please help Canadian government to wake up.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating27
> 
> 
> Reza
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:17 PM
> 
> Israel is a snake and there are two ways to control a snake, cut off its head or get a mongoose.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> mark
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:32 PM
> 
> Hopefully this will trigger a public debate which can only expose israel for what it is. Once the boycott ball starts rolling, everyone will have to join in to avoid criticism. They will then have to either retreat behind their wall or give the native population the vote, which will result in a rapid decline of donor-funded handouts to immigrant jews and, inevitably, an exodus by those who were only there for the freebies.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> N Smith
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:15 PM
> 
> What the Zios fail to understand they have been boycotted a long time ago,no one is feeding into their illusions and fairytales anymore.This is one of the reason they are now spying on indiviudals, to see and hear what is being discussed,they knew it was bad but never realised how much they are becoming despised globally, now China has virtually cut all ties with America even calling for De-Americanisation, the reality is America is Isreal.India is now in dispute with United States of Isreal.I could go on and on.Nethanyahu also knows his days or minutes are numbered, again another reason why he couldnt set foot in SA to attend Mandela funeral Mandela spirit would eat him alive maybe nuttyahoo has a conscience after all somewhere in his demented zionist brain.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating24
> 
> 
> Al Quds
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:53 PM
> 
> Quote: "They have nothing but hopelessness and helplessness ahead of them and this feeling will grow day by day". THE Leader.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Ashrafin reply to Al Quds
> 
> 12/18/2013 2:16:56 PM
> 
> ......2 Al Quds........Yes, they have hopelessness and helplessness a head of them..........That is why, they are MORE DANGEROUS than EVER..........Remember, these savages are PURE EVIL ........& TERRORISM is their survival tool..........Or war and DECEPTIONS .........So the WORLD needs to be aware........& VERY vigilant......
> 
> Click to Rate Rating26
> 
> 
> Lex
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:18 PM
> 
> Well the first step is to pull all your money out of the mainstream banks and deposit it into community banks.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:15 PM
> 
> Get rid of israel as an exclusively zionist and jewish state. Rename it back to Palestine and give everyone an equal say and equal rights. This is the only way out. I don't think israhell will end its occupation, and even if so, it may still cause problems. The surest way to prevent it from doing so if it simply ceases to be israel and is a republic for all who currently live there, under EQUAL terms!
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Faheem Z. Ch
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:4 PM
> 
> About time
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> Bearnárd ó Donnabháin
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:1 PM
> 
> I support all Global boycotts against the racist, extremist, toxic, Cancerous, Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. Israel makes humanity look permanently bad. Viva Palestina !!!, from Eire/Republic of Ireland.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating55
> 
> 
> dekkers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
> Were those from PressTv.com??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
Click to expand...


Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
> Were those from PressTv.com??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.
Click to expand...


It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
Click to expand...


Did you ever wonder why Americans support Israel over the fake Palestinians?


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
Click to expand...


Patronize me for ONE posting...
Name ONE other nation besides Israel that causes you even the most minute amount of misery.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever wonder why Americans support Israel over the fake Palestinians?
Click to expand...


Yes, money and AIPAC and mass media connections....what you read is unfiltered truth that may reach the surface as Americans keep paying with blood and money in this East West struggle with Islam via Palestine...


----------



## percysunshine

I refuse to go bowling until this thread reaches the tenth frame.


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patronize me for ONE posting...
> Name ONE other nation besides Israel that causes you even the most minute amount of misery.
Click to expand...

Pakistan, India, Sudan, Egypt, Somalia, Algeria, Nigeria, Ukraine.


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patronize me for ONE posting...
> Name ONE other nation besides Israel that causes you even the most minute amount of misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pakistan, India, Sudan, Egypt, Somalia, Algeria, Nigeria, Ukraine.
Click to expand...


Start some threads.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever wonder why Americans support Israel over the fake Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, money and AIPAC and mass media connections....what you read is unfiltered truth that may reach the surface as Americans keep paying with blood and money in this East West struggle with Islam via Palestine...
Click to expand...



Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?


----------



## Indeependent

Israel is the ONLY nation that has Lobby Groups dedicated to it's destruction.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever wonder why Americans support Israel over the fake Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, money and AIPAC and mass media connections....what you read is unfiltered truth that may reach the surface as Americans keep paying with blood and money in this East West struggle with Islam via Palestine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
> As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?
Click to expand...


How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...

The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, money and AIPAC and mass media connections....what you read is unfiltered truth that may reach the surface as Americans keep paying with blood and money in this East West struggle with Islam via Palestine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
> As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
Click to expand...


The world has NEVER liked the Children of Israel...NEVER.
Even PRIOR to Christianity.
Try reading some history.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, money and AIPAC and mass media connections....what you read is unfiltered truth that may reach the surface as Americans keep paying with blood and money in this East West struggle with Islam via Palestine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
> As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
Click to expand...


America. Polls are Zionist polls??? LOL where do you come up with this drivel Pbel ? ?

Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, even if you obviously cannot cpme to terms with that


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all need to get over your obsession with Israel.  Russia just invaded Ukraine the other day.  And just because of this crisis, they reported that Russia has been occupying another country called Georgia for several years.  If not for Ukraine, would anyone have even known about Russia and Georgia?  Does anyone ever talk about the Kurds, Chechens, Northern Cypriots or any other people?  No, because the Joos aren't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your love of hate that keeps you going in unison and soldering together. Did you ever wonder why Israel is so despised by ordinary people and many Liberal Joos as you call them?
Click to expand...

Is Israel entered in some kinda popularity contest?  Just sayin'.


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
> As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The world has NEVER liked the Children of Israel...NEVER.
> Even PRIOR to Christianity.
> Try reading some history.*
Click to expand...


Oblige me one post, why is that?


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> "..._Is Israel entered in some kinda popularity contest?  Just sayin'._"


I'm only votin' fer Israel if they re-publish their "_Girls of the IDF_" series... Yowzzzirrr...


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with your assessment is that Jordan never legally annexed the West Bank. It said it did and it acted like it did but the rest of the world said no.
> 
> It was occupied Palestinian territory under Jordan and it is still occupied territory under Israel. The world still calls it Occupied Palestinian territory.
> 
> Even if Jordan lost the war the West Bank was not theirs to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinny, you're dealing with the difference between Paper Law and the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are moving away from the wild west of international diplomacy to a more civilized world.
> 
> We are promoting the rule of law over the rule of the gun.
Click to expand...

Dayam! And I just bought a new Bushmaster AR15.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Russians, and Vladimir Putin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Losing Side in several wars that they started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It all started when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Zionists going to mandatory Palestine have to do with who started the war?
> You keep making this stupid comment like it means something. Mandatory Palestine didnt belong to the Palestinians during the time of the immigration, ak* they had no say weather or not the Jews could come or not*
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The world has NEVER liked the Children of Israel...NEVER.
> Even PRIOR to Christianity.
> Try reading some history.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oblige me one post, why is that?
Click to expand...


The verse that gets to the point...
Genesis 20:11...And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

The Context that leads up to that verse....
Genesis 20:1...And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.

Read through Genesis 20:10 because context is EVERYTHING.

Abraham has just traveled through the Middle East and his wife Sarai has received more than her share of "Hey baby, what'cha doing tonight?".

It's a thing called a God's Moral Standard...We are hated because of it.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Is Israel entered in some kinda popularity contest?  Just sayin'._"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only votin' fer Israel if they re-publish their "_Girls of the IDF_" series... Yowzzzirrr...
Click to expand...


Are you a practitioner of S&M? Not surprised.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Is Israel entered in some kinda popularity contest?  Just sayin'._"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only votin' fer Israel if they re-publish their "_Girls of the IDF_" series... Yowzzzirrr...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a practitioner of S&M? Not surprised.
Click to expand...







This is what I had in mind, pbel - I have no idea where your head was at, in that context..


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, money and AIPAC and mass media connections....what you read is unfiltered truth that may reach the surface as Americans keep paying with blood and money in this East West struggle with Islam via Palestine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
> As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
Click to expand...


I've been hearing "Israel is swirling down the drain" for 50 years from hateful peeps just like you, Princess. If that and Iran's state run PressTV are all you and the Palestinians have I'll put my money on Israel lasting forever.


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol of course, pro Palestinians will always find an excuse for anything positive Bout Israel. Youre so pathetic Pbel with your excuses. If your goal os to make pro Palestinians look bad, youre doing an excellent job.
> As for Americans paying for blood, you need to stop blaming another country for your countrys decision to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> BTW, what does AIPAC have to do with Americans supporting Israel, as many pols have show ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been hearing "Israel is swirling down the drain" for 50 years from hateful peeps just like you, Princess. If that and Iran's state run PressTV are all you and the Palestinians have I'll put my money on Israel lasting forever.
Click to expand...


What has hate by anyone matter? Truth isn't affected by it...Only idiotic purveyors of lies like you pretend that the world loves Israel and that it will survive love or hate.

Look at History...it is very telling


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for World polls show dislike for Israel by very vast majorities? American polls are Zionist polls that keep anything negative about Israel out of our mass medias...that simple...
> 
> The Internet will someday overcome that friendly control...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been hearing "Israel is swirling down the drain" for 50 years from hateful peeps just like you, Princess. If that and Iran's state run PressTV are all you and the Palestinians have I'll put my money on Israel lasting forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has hate by anyone matter? Truth isn't affected by it...Only idiotic purveyors of lies like you pretend that the world loves Israel and that it will survive love or hate.
> 
> Look at History...it is very telling
Click to expand...


"Look at History"...Your own phrase betrays you; Israel is here despite the hate.
Perhaps because of it.


----------



## SAYIT

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only votin' fer Israel if they re-publish their "_Girls of the IDF_" series... Yowzzzirrr...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a practitioner of S&M? Not surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I had in mind, pbel - I have no idea where your head was at, in that context..
Click to expand...


Up his ass, of course.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all started when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Zionists going to mandatory Palestine have to do with who started the war?
> You keep making this stupid comment like it means something. Mandatory Palestine didnt belong to the Palestinians during the time of the immigration, ak* they had no say weather or not the Jews could come or not*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


They had no sovereignty over the land. They owned land there thats all. Britain made the decisions to allows Jews to immigrate. How can Palestinians have any say in this id they had no sovereignty over then land?

You need a link for that? Not everything has a link. This is common sense. But then again, you didnt even know when Palestine became a country


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Zionists going to mandatory Palestine have to do with who started the war?
> You keep making this stupid comment like it means something. Mandatory Palestine didnt belong to the Palestinians during the time of the immigration, ak* they had no say weather or not the Jews could come or not*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had no sovereignty over the land. They owned land there thats all. Britain made the decisions to allows Jews to immigrate. How can Palestinians have any say in this id they had no sovereignty over then land?
> 
> You need a link for that? Not everything has a link. This is common sense. But then again, you didnt even know when Palestine became a country
Click to expand...


According to the Mandate, Palestine was already a country.



> 1. Reaffirms the *inalienable rights* of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly three months old article.  Have you anything more recent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the article, read the postings...Jew Zionists Must Die!
> Now that's what I call an Objective Site!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's not a good representation, others are varied...
> *
> 
> siobhàn
> 
> Jan 9, 2014 11:25 AM
> 
> Since when has being Zionist...a race? That is new to me! Boycotting Israel, is NOT anti-Jewish. Also, I would like to add, that there are more than one Semitic group in the world, besides Jews. See Assyrians for an example..or heaven forbid, Palestinians..as all three are Semitic. Some clearly needs to study.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating6
> 
> 
> Seanoamericanoin reply to siobhàn
> 
> 2/25/2014 241 AM
> 
> When it comes to the zios I am proud to be anti semetic.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating0
> 
> 
> JJ
> 
> Dec 22, 2013 8:31 PM
> 
> Jim W. Dean was writing about this the other day, righthere on Press T.V., about how the people that don't supportthe 'Apartheid Regime' of Israel are now branded as 'Leftists'. In fact anyone that doesn't agree with Israelis now called an 'Extreme Leftist'. Now this is quite oddsince the guys in Russia, like Lennin that murdered TheChristian Czar and his four young daughters and sonto install Communism (that's about as LEFT as you can get)were all Jewish(Lennin changed his name to conceal that) I could now write you a piece as long as this article,but Israel would just use it as a manual to do moresadistic things, so like a cook boils down gallons ofbeef stock to a few cups to make a rich sauce, I willcondense all my ideas down for you to a small amount,you ready? Here goes: ISRAEL GAME OVER !Have A Nice Day Iran !
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating9
> 
> 
> Brit
> 
> Dec 19, 2013 11:31 AM
> 
> Boycott IsraHell.....we don't support Terrorists.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating17
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Brit
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:34:01 PM
> 
> When someone uses the word 'Terrorist', I'm amazed theydon't have to pay 'Royalties' to Israel, since they inventedit. King David Hotel, all the terrorist attacks they havedone fills up a few web pages.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating11
> 
> 
> Palestine
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 8:24 PM
> 
> Israel must leave palestine to the original Palestinian of all religions.including the old original jewish people whom lived and work with Palestinian Arabs or 1000 of years. There should be no room for a racist aoarthied imported zionist jews that demilish Palestinian home and build a place for themseleves. There is no room for criminals to commit crime and think that they will get away with it. It is just matter of time and that time will come.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating31
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Palestine
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:46:21 PM
> 
> Remember the biggest enemy of The Zionist Apartheid Regine that is Israel and The Likud Party is.. The Truth. Press T.V. and others should document in video theatrocities that Israel commits against the people of Palestine and that video should be shown to the whole world, don't just tell them, let them see it. A Documentary needs to be made and as many people aspossible must be exposed to watching it. especiallyAmericans.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating5
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:23 PM
> 
> Please help Canadian government to wake up.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating27
> 
> 
> Reza
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:17 PM
> 
> Israel is a snake and there are two ways to control a snake, cut off its head or get a mongoose.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> mark
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:32 PM
> 
> Hopefully this will trigger a public debate which can only expose israel for what it is. Once the boycott ball starts rolling, everyone will have to join in to avoid criticism. They will then have to either retreat behind their wall or give the native population the vote, which will result in a rapid decline of donor-funded handouts to immigrant jews and, inevitably, an exodus by those who were only there for the freebies.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> N Smith
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:15 PM
> 
> What the Zios fail to understand they have been boycotted a long time ago,no one is feeding into their illusions and fairytales anymore.This is one of the reason they are now spying on indiviudals, to see and hear what is being discussed,they knew it was bad but never realised how much they are becoming despised globally, now China has virtually cut all ties with America even calling for De-Americanisation, the reality is America is Isreal.India is now in dispute with United States of Isreal.I could go on and on.Nethanyahu also knows his days or minutes are numbered, again another reason why he couldnt set foot in SA to attend Mandela funeral Mandela spirit would eat him alive maybe nuttyahoo has a conscience after all somewhere in his demented zionist brain.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating24
> 
> 
> Al Quds
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:53 PM
> 
> Quote: "They have nothing but hopelessness and helplessness ahead of them and this feeling will grow day by day". THE Leader.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Ashrafin reply to Al Quds
> 
> 12/18/2013 2:16:56 PM
> 
> ......2 Al Quds........Yes, they have hopelessness and helplessness a head of them..........That is why, they are MORE DANGEROUS than EVER..........Remember, these savages are PURE EVIL ........& TERRORISM is their survival tool..........Or war and DECEPTIONS .........So the WORLD needs to be aware........& VERY vigilant......
> 
> Click to Rate Rating26
> 
> 
> Lex
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:18 PM
> 
> Well the first step is to pull all your money out of the mainstream banks and deposit it into community banks.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:15 PM
> 
> Get rid of israel as an exclusively zionist and jewish state. Rename it back to Palestine and give everyone an equal say and equal rights. This is the only way out. I don't think israhell will end its occupation, and even if so, it may still cause problems. The surest way to prevent it from doing so if it simply ceases to be israel and is a republic for all who currently live there, under EQUAL terms!
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Faheem Z. Ch
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:4 PM
> 
> About time
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> Bearnárd ó Donnabháin
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:1 PM
> 
> I support all Global boycotts against the racist, extremist, toxic, Cancerous, Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. Israel makes humanity look permanently bad. Viva Palestina !!!, from Eire/Republic of Ireland.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating55
> 
> 
> dekkers
Click to expand...


More varied in their degree of hate.  

Still, you used PressTV as a source so that figures.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a good representation, others are varied...
> 
> 
> siobhàn
> 
> Jan 9, 2014 11:25 AM
> 
> Since when has being Zionist...a race? That is new to me! Boycotting Israel, is NOT anti-Jewish. Also, I would like to add, that there are more than one Semitic group in the world, besides Jews. See Assyrians for an example..or heaven forbid, Palestinians..as all three are Semitic. Some clearly needs to study.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating6
> 
> 
> Seanoamericanoin reply to siobhàn
> 
> 2/25/2014 241 AM
> 
> When it comes to the zios I am proud to be anti semetic.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating0
> 
> 
> JJ
> 
> Dec 22, 2013 8:31 PM
> 
> Jim W. Dean was writing about this the other day, righthere on Press T.V., about how the people that don't supportthe 'Apartheid Regime' of Israel are now branded as 'Leftists'. In fact anyone that doesn't agree with Israelis now called an 'Extreme Leftist'. Now this is quite oddsince the guys in Russia, like Lennin that murdered TheChristian Czar and his four young daughters and sonto install Communism (that's about as LEFT as you can get)were all Jewish(Lennin changed his name to conceal that) I could now write you a piece as long as this article,but Israel would just use it as a manual to do moresadistic things, so like a cook boils down gallons ofbeef stock to a few cups to make a rich sauce, I willcondense all my ideas down for you to a small amount,you ready? Here goes: ISRAEL GAME OVER !Have A Nice Day Iran !
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating9
> 
> 
> Brit
> 
> Dec 19, 2013 11:31 AM
> 
> Boycott IsraHell.....we don't support Terrorists.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating17
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Brit
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:34:01 PM
> 
> When someone uses the word 'Terrorist', I'm amazed theydon't have to pay 'Royalties' to Israel, since they inventedit. King David Hotel, all the terrorist attacks they havedone fills up a few web pages.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating11
> 
> 
> Palestine
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 8:24 PM
> 
> Israel must leave palestine to the original Palestinian of all religions.including the old original jewish people whom lived and work with Palestinian Arabs or 1000 of years. There should be no room for a racist aoarthied imported zionist jews that demilish Palestinian home and build a place for themseleves. There is no room for criminals to commit crime and think that they will get away with it. It is just matter of time and that time will come.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating31
> 
> 
> JJin reply to Palestine
> 
> 12/22/2013 8:46:21 PM
> 
> Remember the biggest enemy of The Zionist Apartheid Regine that is Israel and The Likud Party is.. The Truth. Press T.V. and others should document in video theatrocities that Israel commits against the people of Palestine and that video should be shown to the whole world, don't just tell them, let them see it. A Documentary needs to be made and as many people aspossible must be exposed to watching it. especiallyAmericans.
> 
> Click to Rate Rating5
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:23 PM
> 
> Please help Canadian government to wake up.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating27
> 
> 
> Reza
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 7:17 PM
> 
> Israel is a snake and there are two ways to control a snake, cut off its head or get a mongoose.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> mark
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:32 PM
> 
> Hopefully this will trigger a public debate which can only expose israel for what it is. Once the boycott ball starts rolling, everyone will have to join in to avoid criticism. They will then have to either retreat behind their wall or give the native population the vote, which will result in a rapid decline of donor-funded handouts to immigrant jews and, inevitably, an exodus by those who were only there for the freebies.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> N Smith
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 2:15 PM
> 
> What the Zios fail to understand they have been boycotted a long time ago,no one is feeding into their illusions and fairytales anymore.This is one of the reason they are now spying on indiviudals, to see and hear what is being discussed,they knew it was bad but never realised how much they are becoming despised globally, now China has virtually cut all ties with America even calling for De-Americanisation, the reality is America is Isreal.India is now in dispute with United States of Isreal.I could go on and on.Nethanyahu also knows his days or minutes are numbered, again another reason why he couldnt set foot in SA to attend Mandela funeral Mandela spirit would eat him alive maybe nuttyahoo has a conscience after all somewhere in his demented zionist brain.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating24
> 
> 
> Al Quds
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:53 PM
> 
> Quote: "They have nothing but hopelessness and helplessness ahead of them and this feeling will grow day by day". THE Leader.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Ashrafin reply to Al Quds
> 
> 12/18/2013 2:16:56 PM
> 
> ......2 Al Quds........Yes, they have hopelessness and helplessness a head of them..........That is why, they are MORE DANGEROUS than EVER..........Remember, these savages are PURE EVIL ........& TERRORISM is their survival tool..........Or war and DECEPTIONS .........So the WORLD needs to be aware........& VERY vigilant......
> 
> Click to Rate Rating26
> 
> 
> Lex
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:18 PM
> 
> Well the first step is to pull all your money out of the mainstream banks and deposit it into community banks.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating37
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 1:15 PM
> 
> Get rid of israel as an exclusively zionist and jewish state. Rename it back to Palestine and give everyone an equal say and equal rights. This is the only way out. I don't think israhell will end its occupation, and even if so, it may still cause problems. The surest way to prevent it from doing so if it simply ceases to be israel and is a republic for all who currently live there, under EQUAL terms!
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating23
> 
> 
> Faheem Z. Ch
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:4 PM
> 
> About time
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating35
> 
> 
> Bearnárd ó Donnabháin
> 
> Dec 18, 2013 12:1 PM
> 
> I support all Global boycotts against the racist, extremist, toxic, Cancerous, Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. Israel makes humanity look permanently bad. Viva Palestina !!!, from Eire/Republic of Ireland.
> 
> Click to Rate ReplyRating55
> 
> 
> dekkers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
> Were those from PressTv.com??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? *Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...*you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
Click to expand...


What, like this?

*Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East

Support for Israel among Americans hits 23-year high.*


By Maayana Miskin
First Publish: 2/25/2014, 9:29 PM


Support for Israel among United States citizens is at a 23-year high of 72%, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.

Israel was the Middle Eastern country with the highest favorable rating by far, with Egypt in a distant second place with 45% support. Egypt was followed by Saudi Arabia, which 35% of Americans viewed favorably.

The Palestinian Authority enjoyed a favorable rating of just 19%, while Irans rating was at 12%.

The poll found an unusually strong generation difference regarding opinions of Israel, with older respondents most likely to have a favorable view of Israel. Among those age 55 and older, 81% had a favorable view of Israel, while among those age 18-34 support for Israel was at 64%.

Support for the Palestinian Authority stood at 16% among those age 55 and above, and at 24% among those ages 18-34.

The results indicate a trend that is likely to have a significant impact on U.S. President Barack Obamas treatment of Israel, former Israeli ambassador to America Yoram Ettinger told Arutz Sheva.

Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have been turning up the pressure on Israel in an attempt to achieve results in talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to Ettinger, their approach has caused upset, and Obamas talk of creating a PA state has largely been met with apathy.

With elections for the Congress and Senate planned for late 2014, Obama is likely to back down in the face of strong public support for Israel, Ettinger predicted. Victory for the Republican party in November would make Obama a lame duck president for his last two years in office, he explained; Obama will seek to avoid that scenario by playing to voters.

American support for Israel has grown in recent years as Americans increasingly understand the challenges Israel is facing, Ettinger said. A combination of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the threat of Islamist terrorism within the United States, and cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on economic and defense-related issues has improved Israels image despite disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders regarding Israel-PA talks, he said.

Americans also see Israel as sharing a moral and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage, according to Ettinger.

Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East - News from America - News - Israel National News


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
> Were those from PressTv.com??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? *Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...*you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, like this?
> 
> *Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East
> 
> Support for Israel among Americans hits 23-year high.*
> 
> 
> By Maayana Miskin
> First Publish: 2/25/2014, 9:29 PM
> 
> 
> Support for Israel among United States citizens is at a 23-year high of 72%, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.
> 
> Israel was the Middle Eastern country with the highest favorable rating by far, with Egypt in a distant second place with 45% support. Egypt was followed by Saudi Arabia, which 35% of Americans viewed favorably.
> 
> The Palestinian Authority enjoyed a favorable rating of just 19%, while Irans rating was at 12%.
> 
> The poll found an unusually strong generation difference regarding opinions of Israel, with older respondents most likely to have a favorable view of Israel. Among those age 55 and older, 81% had a favorable view of Israel, while among those age 18-34 support for Israel was at 64%.
> 
> Support for the Palestinian Authority stood at 16% among those age 55 and above, and at 24% among those ages 18-34.
> 
> The results indicate a trend that is likely to have a significant impact on U.S. President Barack Obamas treatment of Israel, former Israeli ambassador to America Yoram Ettinger told Arutz Sheva.
> 
> Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have been turning up the pressure on Israel in an attempt to achieve results in talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to Ettinger, their approach has caused upset, and Obamas talk of creating a PA state has largely been met with apathy.
> 
> With elections for the Congress and Senate planned for late 2014, Obama is likely to back down in the face of strong public support for Israel, Ettinger predicted. Victory for the Republican party in November would make Obama a lame duck president for his last two years in office, he explained; Obama will seek to avoid that scenario by playing to voters.
> 
> American support for Israel has grown in recent years as Americans increasingly understand the challenges Israel is facing, Ettinger said. A combination of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the threat of Islamist terrorism within the United States, and cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on economic and defense-related issues has improved Israels image despite disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders regarding Israel-PA talks, he said.
> 
> Americans also see Israel as sharing a moral and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage, according to Ettinger.
> 
> Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East - News from America - News - Israel National News
Click to expand...


Gallup predicted a Romney win over Obama...


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a practitioner of S&M? Not surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I had in mind, pbel - I have no idea where your head was at, in that context..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Up his ass, of course.
Click to expand...


Sayit the Sniffer of all things assholes...


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? *Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...*you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, like this?
> 
> *Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East
> 
> Support for Israel among Americans hits 23-year high.*
> 
> 
> By Maayana Miskin
> First Publish: 2/25/2014, 9:29 PM
> 
> 
> Support for Israel among United States citizens is at a 23-year high of 72%, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.
> 
> Israel was the Middle Eastern country with the highest favorable rating by far, with Egypt in a distant second place with 45% support. Egypt was followed by Saudi Arabia, which 35% of Americans viewed favorably.
> 
> The Palestinian Authority enjoyed a favorable rating of just 19%, while Irans rating was at 12%.
> 
> The poll found an unusually strong generation difference regarding opinions of Israel, with older respondents most likely to have a favorable view of Israel. Among those age 55 and older, 81% had a favorable view of Israel, while among those age 18-34 support for Israel was at 64%.
> 
> Support for the Palestinian Authority stood at 16% among those age 55 and above, and at 24% among those ages 18-34.
> 
> The results indicate a trend that is likely to have a significant impact on U.S. President Barack Obamas treatment of Israel, former Israeli ambassador to America Yoram Ettinger told Arutz Sheva.
> 
> Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have been turning up the pressure on Israel in an attempt to achieve results in talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to Ettinger, their approach has caused upset, and Obamas talk of creating a PA state has largely been met with apathy.
> 
> With elections for the Congress and Senate planned for late 2014, Obama is likely to back down in the face of strong public support for Israel, Ettinger predicted. Victory for the Republican party in November would make Obama a lame duck president for his last two years in office, he explained; Obama will seek to avoid that scenario by playing to voters.
> 
> American support for Israel has grown in recent years as Americans increasingly understand the challenges Israel is facing, Ettinger said. A combination of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the threat of Islamist terrorism within the United States, and cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on economic and defense-related issues has improved Israels image despite disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders regarding Israel-PA talks, he said.
> 
> Americans also see Israel as sharing a moral and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage, according to Ettinger.
> 
> Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East - News from America - News - Israel National News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup predicted a Romney win over Obama...
Click to expand...


Prediction and viewpoints are two separate matters.


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove by showing us opinions of hateful people from another site??
> Were those from PressTv.com??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? *Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...*you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, like this?
> 
> *Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East
> 
> Support for Israel among Americans hits 23-year high.*
> 
> 
> By Maayana Miskin
> First Publish: 2/25/2014, 9:29 PM
> 
> 
> Support for Israel among United States citizens is at a 23-year high of 72%, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.
> 
> Israel was the Middle Eastern country with the highest favorable rating by far, with Egypt in a distant second place with 45% support. Egypt was followed by Saudi Arabia, which 35% of Americans viewed favorably.
> 
> The Palestinian Authority enjoyed a favorable rating of just 19%, while Irans rating was at 12%.
> 
> The poll found an unusually strong generation difference regarding opinions of Israel, with older respondents most likely to have a favorable view of Israel. Among those age 55 and older, 81% had a favorable view of Israel, while among those age 18-34 support for Israel was at 64%.
> 
> Support for the Palestinian Authority stood at 16% among those age 55 and above, and at 24% among those ages 18-34.
> 
> The results indicate a trend that is likely to have a significant impact on U.S. President Barack Obamas treatment of Israel, former Israeli ambassador to America Yoram Ettinger told Arutz Sheva.
> 
> Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have been turning up the pressure on Israel in an attempt to achieve results in talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to Ettinger, their approach has caused upset, and Obamas talk of creating a PA state has largely been met with apathy.
> 
> With elections for the Congress and Senate planned for late 2014, Obama is likely to back down in the face of strong public support for Israel, Ettinger predicted. Victory for the Republican party in November would make Obama a lame duck president for his last two years in office, he explained; Obama will seek to avoid that scenario by playing to voters.
> 
> American support for Israel has grown in recent years as Americans increasingly understand the challenges Israel is facing, Ettinger said. A combination of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the threat of Islamist terrorism within the United States, and cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on economic and defense-related issues has improved Israels image despite disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders regarding Israel-PA talks, he said.
> 
> Americans also see Israel as sharing a moral and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage, according to Ettinger.
> 
> Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East - News from America - News - Israel National News
Click to expand...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[14]

In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[15] Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[16] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error. Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[17]


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies is hateful? *Read what Americans and Europeans are thinking...*you refuse to see the truth...A new Internet generation can see trough all your brutal policies of force and injustice...you use the hate card like glue with your cohorts to fight for Israel right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, like this?
> 
> *Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East
> 
> Support for Israel among Americans hits 23-year high.*
> 
> 
> By Maayana Miskin
> First Publish: 2/25/2014, 9:29 PM
> 
> 
> Support for Israel among United States citizens is at a 23-year high of 72%, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.
> 
> Israel was the Middle Eastern country with the highest favorable rating by far, with Egypt in a distant second place with 45% support. Egypt was followed by Saudi Arabia, which 35% of Americans viewed favorably.
> 
> The Palestinian Authority enjoyed a favorable rating of just 19%, while Irans rating was at 12%.
> 
> The poll found an unusually strong generation difference regarding opinions of Israel, with older respondents most likely to have a favorable view of Israel. Among those age 55 and older, 81% had a favorable view of Israel, while among those age 18-34 support for Israel was at 64%.
> 
> Support for the Palestinian Authority stood at 16% among those age 55 and above, and at 24% among those ages 18-34.
> 
> The results indicate a trend that is likely to have a significant impact on U.S. President Barack Obamas treatment of Israel, former Israeli ambassador to America Yoram Ettinger told Arutz Sheva.
> 
> Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have been turning up the pressure on Israel in an attempt to achieve results in talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to Ettinger, their approach has caused upset, and Obamas talk of creating a PA state has largely been met with apathy.
> 
> With elections for the Congress and Senate planned for late 2014, Obama is likely to back down in the face of strong public support for Israel, Ettinger predicted. Victory for the Republican party in November would make Obama a lame duck president for his last two years in office, he explained; Obama will seek to avoid that scenario by playing to voters.
> 
> American support for Israel has grown in recent years as Americans increasingly understand the challenges Israel is facing, Ettinger said. A combination of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the threat of Islamist terrorism within the United States, and cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on economic and defense-related issues has improved Israels image despite disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders regarding Israel-PA talks, he said.
> 
> Americans also see Israel as sharing a moral and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage, according to Ettinger.
> 
> Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East - News from America - News - Israel National News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[14]
> 
> In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[15] Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[16] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error. Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[17]
Click to expand...


Gallup not good enough?  
OK...........


ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran

New York, NY, November 5, 2013  In a new survey of the American public on issues surrounding Israel, the Middle East peace process and Iran, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found continuing strong public support for Israel but a country uncertain about the best way to proceed regarding Irans effort to develop a nuclear bomb.

Regarding attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, three times as many Americans  48-16  expressed sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of those polled said that Israel can be counted on as a strong U.S. ally, the highest figure in recent years, while 64 percent said they believe that Israel is serious in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  A similar poll conducted in 2009 found that 67 percent of Americans believed then that Israel was a strong ally.

The 2013 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, The Palestinians and the Middle East, a national telephone survey of 1,200 American adults, was conducted October 12-22, 2013 by Marttila Strategies of Washington, D.C. and Boston.  The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.

This latest survey of the American people shows that Americans continue to see Israel as Americas closest ally in the Middle East and a willing partner for peace with the Palestinians, said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  American public sympathy for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians is at an all-time high.

Together with strong support for Israel came as ambivalence about U.S. involvement in the region.

A significant majority of Americans  62 percent -- said that peace between Israelis and Palestinians should be achieved by them with minimal U.S. involvement.  Only 29% said it could not happen without U.S. leadership. 

A slim plurality  50-41  supports U.S. military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and another plurality, 46-42, believes sanctions against Iran should remain until they give up their weapons program.

As to what position the U.S. should take if Israel attacked Iran to stop its nuclear program, 40 percent said the U.S. should support Israel, 48 percent said the U.S. should be neutral, and 9 percent said the U.S. should oppose it.

At the same time, there was little trust of Iran among the American people.  Eighty-one percent (81%) said they could not trust Iran when it says it will not develop nuclear weapons; and 74 percent said that they did not believe Iran will abide by its public commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

What we see here are two trends.  On the one hand, Israel is in as good a position with the American public as it ever has been, said Mr. Foxman. On the other hand, there are signs here as elsewhere that the American people want less U.S. involvement in the Middle East region, a position which has little to do with negative feelings toward Israel but that can have negative consequences for the Jewish state.

ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, like this?
> 
> *Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East
> 
> Support for Israel among Americans hits 23-year high.*
> 
> 
> By Maayana Miskin
> First Publish: 2/25/2014, 9:29 PM
> 
> 
> Support for Israel among United States citizens is at a 23-year high of 72%, according to a new poll conducted by Gallup.
> 
> Israel was the Middle Eastern country with the highest favorable rating by far, with Egypt in a distant second place with 45% support. Egypt was followed by Saudi Arabia, which 35% of Americans viewed favorably.
> 
> The Palestinian Authority enjoyed a favorable rating of just 19%, while Irans rating was at 12%.
> 
> The poll found an unusually strong generation difference regarding opinions of Israel, with older respondents most likely to have a favorable view of Israel. Among those age 55 and older, 81% had a favorable view of Israel, while among those age 18-34 support for Israel was at 64%.
> 
> Support for the Palestinian Authority stood at 16% among those age 55 and above, and at 24% among those ages 18-34.
> 
> The results indicate a trend that is likely to have a significant impact on U.S. President Barack Obamas treatment of Israel, former Israeli ambassador to America Yoram Ettinger told Arutz Sheva.
> 
> Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have been turning up the pressure on Israel in an attempt to achieve results in talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to Ettinger, their approach has caused upset, and Obamas talk of creating a PA state has largely been met with apathy.
> 
> With elections for the Congress and Senate planned for late 2014, Obama is likely to back down in the face of strong public support for Israel, Ettinger predicted. Victory for the Republican party in November would make Obama a lame duck president for his last two years in office, he explained; Obama will seek to avoid that scenario by playing to voters.
> 
> American support for Israel has grown in recent years as Americans increasingly understand the challenges Israel is facing, Ettinger said. A combination of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, the threat of Islamist terrorism within the United States, and cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on economic and defense-related issues has improved Israels image despite disagreements between Israeli and U.S. leaders regarding Israel-PA talks, he said.
> 
> Americans also see Israel as sharing a moral and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage, according to Ettinger.
> 
> Gallup Poll: Israel Most Popular in Middle East - News from America - News - Israel National News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[14]
> 
> In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[15] Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[16] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error. Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[17]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough?
> OK...........
> 
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> New York, NY, November 5, 2013  In a new survey of the American public on issues surrounding Israel, the Middle East peace process and Iran, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found continuing strong public support for Israel but a country uncertain about the best way to proceed regarding Irans effort to develop a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Regarding attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, three times as many Americans  48-16  expressed sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians.
> 
> Seventy-six percent (76%) of those polled said that Israel can be counted on as a strong U.S. ally, the highest figure in recent years, while 64 percent said they believe that Israel is serious in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  A similar poll conducted in 2009 found that 67 percent of Americans believed then that Israel was a strong ally.
> 
> The 2013 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, The Palestinians and the Middle East, a national telephone survey of 1,200 American adults, was conducted October 12-22, 2013 by Marttila Strategies of Washington, D.C. and Boston.  The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.
> 
> This latest survey of the American people shows that Americans continue to see Israel as Americas closest ally in the Middle East and a willing partner for peace with the Palestinians, said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  American public sympathy for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians is at an all-time high.
> 
> Together with strong support for Israel came as ambivalence about U.S. involvement in the region.
> 
> A significant majority of Americans  62 percent -- said that peace between Israelis and Palestinians should be achieved by them with minimal U.S. involvement.  Only 29% said it could not happen without U.S. leadership.
> 
> A slim plurality  50-41  supports U.S. military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and another plurality, 46-42, believes sanctions against Iran should remain until they give up their weapons program.
> 
> As to what position the U.S. should take if Israel attacked Iran to stop its nuclear program, 40 percent said the U.S. should support Israel, 48 percent said the U.S. should be neutral, and 9 percent said the U.S. should oppose it.
> 
> At the same time, there was little trust of Iran among the American people.  Eighty-one percent (81%) said they could not trust Iran when it says it will not develop nuclear weapons; and 74 percent said that they did not believe Iran will abide by its public commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> What we see here are two trends.  On the one hand, Israel is in as good a position with the American public as it ever has been, said Mr. Foxman. On the other hand, there are signs here as elsewhere that the American people want less U.S. involvement in the Middle East region, a position which has little to do with negative feelings toward Israel but that can have negative consequences for the Jewish state.
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
Click to expand...


Pretty lame when you use the ADL to support Israel.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[14]
> 
> In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[15] Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[16] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error. Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[17]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough?
> OK...........
> 
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> New York, NY, November 5, 2013  In a new survey of the American public on issues surrounding Israel, the Middle East peace process and Iran, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found continuing strong public support for Israel but a country uncertain about the best way to proceed regarding Irans effort to develop a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Regarding attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, three times as many Americans  48-16  expressed sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians.
> 
> Seventy-six percent (76%) of those polled said that Israel can be counted on as a strong U.S. ally, the highest figure in recent years, while 64 percent said they believe that Israel is serious in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  A similar poll conducted in 2009 found that 67 percent of Americans believed then that Israel was a strong ally.
> 
> The 2013 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, The Palestinians and the Middle East, a national telephone survey of 1,200 American adults, was conducted October 12-22, 2013 by Marttila Strategies of Washington, D.C. and Boston.  The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.
> 
> This latest survey of the American people shows that Americans continue to see Israel as Americas closest ally in the Middle East and a willing partner for peace with the Palestinians, said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  American public sympathy for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians is at an all-time high.
> 
> Together with strong support for Israel came as ambivalence about U.S. involvement in the region.
> 
> A significant majority of Americans  62 percent -- said that peace between Israelis and Palestinians should be achieved by them with minimal U.S. involvement.  Only 29% said it could not happen without U.S. leadership.
> 
> A slim plurality  50-41  supports U.S. military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and another plurality, 46-42, believes sanctions against Iran should remain until they give up their weapons program.
> 
> As to what position the U.S. should take if Israel attacked Iran to stop its nuclear program, 40 percent said the U.S. should support Israel, 48 percent said the U.S. should be neutral, and 9 percent said the U.S. should oppose it.
> 
> At the same time, there was little trust of Iran among the American people.  Eighty-one percent (81%) said they could not trust Iran when it says it will not develop nuclear weapons; and 74 percent said that they did not believe Iran will abide by its public commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> What we see here are two trends.  On the one hand, Israel is in as good a position with the American public as it ever has been, said Mr. Foxman. On the other hand, there are signs here as elsewhere that the American people want less U.S. involvement in the Middle East region, a position which has little to do with negative feelings toward Israel but that can have negative consequences for the Jewish state.
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty lame when you use the ADL to support Israel.
Click to expand...


Pretty lame when you refute the obvious.


----------



## pbel

Indeependent said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been hearing "Israel is swirling down the drain" for 50 years from hateful peeps just like you, Princess. If that and Iran's state run PressTV are all you and the Palestinians have I'll put my money on Israel lasting forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has hate by anyone matter? Truth isn't affected by it...Only idiotic purveyors of lies like you pretend that the world loves Israel and that it will survive love or hate.
> 
> Look at History...it is very telling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Look at History"...Your own phrase betrays you; Israel is here despite the hate.
> Perhaps because of it.
Click to expand...


Hate is the cement that makes you thrive as you say, but you still have not answered why the hate?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_(company)Gallup correctly predicted the winner, but was rated 17th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.[14]
> 
> In 2012, Gallup's final election survey had Mitt Romney at 49% and Barack Obama at 48%, compared to the final election results showing Obama with 51.1% to Romney's 47.2%.[15] Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.[16] Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of Gallup, responded to the criticism by stating that Gallup simply makes an estimate of the national popular vote rather than predicting the winner and that their final poll was within the statistical margin of error. Newport also criticized analysts such as Silver who aggregate and analyze other people's polls, stating that "Its much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others polls."[17]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough?
> OK...........
> 
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> New York, NY, November 5, 2013  In a new survey of the American public on issues surrounding Israel, the Middle East peace process and Iran, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found continuing strong public support for Israel but a country uncertain about the best way to proceed regarding Irans effort to develop a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Regarding attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, three times as many Americans  48-16  expressed sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians.
> 
> Seventy-six percent (76%) of those polled said that Israel can be counted on as a strong U.S. ally, the highest figure in recent years, while 64 percent said they believe that Israel is serious in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  A similar poll conducted in 2009 found that 67 percent of Americans believed then that Israel was a strong ally.
> 
> The 2013 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, The Palestinians and the Middle East, a national telephone survey of 1,200 American adults, was conducted October 12-22, 2013 by Marttila Strategies of Washington, D.C. and Boston.  The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.
> 
> This latest survey of the American people shows that Americans continue to see Israel as Americas closest ally in the Middle East and a willing partner for peace with the Palestinians, said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  American public sympathy for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians is at an all-time high.
> 
> Together with strong support for Israel came as ambivalence about U.S. involvement in the region.
> 
> A significant majority of Americans  62 percent -- said that peace between Israelis and Palestinians should be achieved by them with minimal U.S. involvement.  Only 29% said it could not happen without U.S. leadership.
> 
> A slim plurality  50-41  supports U.S. military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and another plurality, 46-42, believes sanctions against Iran should remain until they give up their weapons program.
> 
> As to what position the U.S. should take if Israel attacked Iran to stop its nuclear program, 40 percent said the U.S. should support Israel, 48 percent said the U.S. should be neutral, and 9 percent said the U.S. should oppose it.
> 
> At the same time, there was little trust of Iran among the American people.  Eighty-one percent (81%) said they could not trust Iran when it says it will not develop nuclear weapons; and 74 percent said that they did not believe Iran will abide by its public commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> What we see here are two trends.  On the one hand, Israel is in as good a position with the American public as it ever has been, said Mr. Foxman. On the other hand, there are signs here as elsewhere that the American people want less U.S. involvement in the Middle East region, a position which has little to do with negative feelings toward Israel but that can have negative consequences for the Jewish state.
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty lame when you use the ADL to support Israel.
Click to expand...


Gallup not good enough for you.
ADL also not good enough for you.
So here is McLaughlin Associates (polling organization).  


Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel

ZOA poll reveals that most Americans - even those outside Jewish communities - oppose Washington's anti-Israel policies.


By Tova Dvorin
First Publish: 1/27/2014, 8:02 PM



The White House's recent policies against Israel do not reflect the will of the American people, according to a recent poll. 

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) released the results of a nationwide survey this month revealing that the vast majority of Americans support Israel on nearly every major issue addressed in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). 

The survey recorded the responses of over 1000 American citizens from various populations - not just the Jewish community - and was conducted by McLaughlin Associates, a well-known polling organization. 

Among those polled in the representative sample, 46% of respondents were Protestant, 30% were Catholic, and 3.6% were Jewish; by ethnicity, 13% were African Americans, 12% were Hispanics, 3% were Asian, and 70% were Caucasian, according to the organization. The religious and ethnic breakdown reflects the American population as a whole.

The survey also attempted to cover the political spectrum; 42% of respondents identified themselves as Republican, and 41% as Democrats. 

Based on the poll, a majority - 51% - of Americans believe that US President Barack Obama has not done all he can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 28% who believe that he has.

A large majority of Americans - 59% - believe that the stronger sanctions should be imposed on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 17% who say the West should weaken sanctions on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons.

47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live in Judea and Samaria (Shomron); among other reasons, Israel will be better able to defend itself with a large population living in that region. Only 14% of Americans believe that only Palestinian Arabs should have the right to live in the region.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of Americans oppose Obamas plan to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) $440 million in a plan recently proposed by the President, as opposed to a mere 15% who believe that he should.

A large majority of 55% of Americans say that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Just 13% believe it should not. In addition,  63% of Americans believe that the PA should recognize Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, whereas only 11% believe it should not.

The most surprising statistic: only 31% of Americans believe that President Barack Obama is a close and reliable friend of Israel, as opposed to 38% who believe that he is not. The numbers stand in stark contradiction to the widespread belief that most Americans - and, until recently, most Israelis - believe that the US is Israel's strongest ally. 

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein welcomed the news.

The results of this latest, very detailed and highly representative survey of American opinion show gratifyingly high, indeed, overwhelming levels of support for positions Israel takes, as opposed to the position the Obama Administration takes," Klein said. "It also shows an understanding of the dangers Israel faces from a terror-sponsoring Palestinian Authority." 

Americans believe by an overwhelming ratio that Israeli Jews have a right to live in Judea/Samaria, whereas only a small percentage believe in the racist, anti-Semitic Palestinian position that only Palestinians have the right to live there," he continued.  Large majorities of Americans clearly understand that a Palestinian state, if established, will not live in peace with Israel and will simply be another Mideast terrorist state. 

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should heed these results," Klein implored. "They should understand that the American people expect our government to support Israel; stop promoting a Palestinian state; stop condemning Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as illegitimate; support Jerusalem as Israels undivided capital; stop funding the PA and impose stronger sanctions on Iran to persuade it to terminate its nuclear weapons program."

Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel - News from America - News - Israel National News


----------



## montelatici

*BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*

According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.

The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.

Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/bbc-poll-israel-among-world-s-least-popular-nations-1.525890

Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.


----------



## montelatici

*BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*

According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.

The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.

Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.

BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz

Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough?
> OK...........
> 
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> New York, NY, November 5, 2013  In a new survey of the American public on issues surrounding Israel, the Middle East peace process and Iran, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found continuing strong public support for Israel but a country uncertain about the best way to proceed regarding Irans effort to develop a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Regarding attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, three times as many Americans  48-16  expressed sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians.
> 
> Seventy-six percent (76%) of those polled said that Israel can be counted on as a strong U.S. ally, the highest figure in recent years, while 64 percent said they believe that Israel is serious in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  A similar poll conducted in 2009 found that 67 percent of Americans believed then that Israel was a strong ally.
> 
> The 2013 Survey of American Attitudes on Israel, The Palestinians and the Middle East, a national telephone survey of 1,200 American adults, was conducted October 12-22, 2013 by Marttila Strategies of Washington, D.C. and Boston.  The margin of error is +/-2.8 percent.
> 
> This latest survey of the American people shows that Americans continue to see Israel as Americas closest ally in the Middle East and a willing partner for peace with the Palestinians, said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  American public sympathy for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians is at an all-time high.
> 
> Together with strong support for Israel came as ambivalence about U.S. involvement in the region.
> 
> A significant majority of Americans  62 percent -- said that peace between Israelis and Palestinians should be achieved by them with minimal U.S. involvement.  Only 29% said it could not happen without U.S. leadership.
> 
> A slim plurality  50-41  supports U.S. military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and another plurality, 46-42, believes sanctions against Iran should remain until they give up their weapons program.
> 
> As to what position the U.S. should take if Israel attacked Iran to stop its nuclear program, 40 percent said the U.S. should support Israel, 48 percent said the U.S. should be neutral, and 9 percent said the U.S. should oppose it.
> 
> At the same time, there was little trust of Iran among the American people.  Eighty-one percent (81%) said they could not trust Iran when it says it will not develop nuclear weapons; and 74 percent said that they did not believe Iran will abide by its public commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> What we see here are two trends.  On the one hand, Israel is in as good a position with the American public as it ever has been, said Mr. Foxman. On the other hand, there are signs here as elsewhere that the American people want less U.S. involvement in the Middle East region, a position which has little to do with negative feelings toward Israel but that can have negative consequences for the Jewish state.
> 
> ADL Survey of American Public Finds Strong Support for Israel, But Uncertainty Over Approach to Iran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty lame when you use the ADL to support Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough for you.
> ADL also not good enough for you.
> So here is McLaughlin Associates (polling organization).
> 
> 
> Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel
> 
> ZOA poll reveals that most Americans - even those outside Jewish communities - oppose Washington's anti-Israel policies.
> 
> 
> By Tova Dvorin
> First Publish: 1/27/2014, 8:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> The White House's recent policies against Israel do not reflect the will of the American people, according to a recent poll.
> 
> The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) released the results of a nationwide survey this month revealing that the vast majority of Americans support Israel on nearly every major issue addressed in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
> 
> The survey recorded the responses of over 1000 American citizens from various populations - not just the Jewish community - and was conducted by McLaughlin Associates, a well-known polling organization.
> 
> Among those polled in the representative sample, 46% of respondents were Protestant, 30% were Catholic, and 3.6% were Jewish; by ethnicity, 13% were African Americans, 12% were Hispanics, 3% were Asian, and 70% were Caucasian, according to the organization. The religious and ethnic breakdown reflects the American population as a whole.
> 
> The survey also attempted to cover the political spectrum; 42% of respondents identified themselves as Republican, and 41% as Democrats.
> 
> Based on the poll, a majority - 51% - of Americans believe that US President Barack Obama has not done all he can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 28% who believe that he has.
> 
> A large majority of Americans - 59% - believe that the stronger sanctions should be imposed on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 17% who say the West should weaken sanctions on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons.
> 
> 47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live in Judea and Samaria (Shomron); among other reasons, Israel will be better able to defend itself with a large population living in that region. Only 14% of Americans believe that only Palestinian Arabs should have the right to live in the region.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of 72% of Americans oppose Obamas plan to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) $440 million in a plan recently proposed by the President, as opposed to a mere 15% who believe that he should.
> 
> A large majority of 55% of Americans say that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Just 13% believe it should not. In addition,  63% of Americans believe that the PA should recognize Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, whereas only 11% believe it should not.
> 
> The most surprising statistic: only 31% of Americans believe that President Barack Obama is a close and reliable friend of Israel, as opposed to 38% who believe that he is not. The numbers stand in stark contradiction to the widespread belief that most Americans - and, until recently, most Israelis - believe that the US is Israel's strongest ally.
> 
> ZOA National President Morton A. Klein welcomed the news.
> 
> The results of this latest, very detailed and highly representative survey of American opinion show gratifyingly high, indeed, overwhelming levels of support for positions Israel takes, as opposed to the position the Obama Administration takes," Klein said. "It also shows an understanding of the dangers Israel faces from a terror-sponsoring Palestinian Authority."
> 
> Americans believe by an overwhelming ratio that Israeli Jews have a right to live in Judea/Samaria, whereas only a small percentage believe in the racist, anti-Semitic Palestinian position that only Palestinians have the right to live there," he continued.  Large majorities of Americans clearly understand that a Palestinian state, if established, will not live in peace with Israel and will simply be another Mideast terrorist state.
> 
> President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should heed these results," Klein implored. "They should understand that the American people expect our government to support Israel; stop promoting a Palestinian state; stop condemning Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as illegitimate; support Jerusalem as Israels undivided capital; stop funding the PA and impose stronger sanctions on Iran to persuade it to terminate its nuclear weapons program."
> 
> Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel - News from America - News - Israel National News
Click to expand...


The ADL was bad enough, but now you use the Israeli National News? You just took the pole position as Airhead #1!


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> *BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*
> 
> According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.
> 
> Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.



Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*
> 
> According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.
> 
> Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
Click to expand...

*Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link*

WASHINGTON (AP)  Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

*The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two. *

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*
> 
> According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.
> 
> Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
Click to expand...



What will matter in a few years is what people in China, Russia and the EU believe about Israel.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*
> 
> According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.
> 
> Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*
Click to expand...


May 20, 2002	by Tamar Sternthal

Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote

In a May 10, 2002 column (Now Isnt the Time for Bush League Moves), nationally-syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer included bogus and inflammatory allegations against Prime Minister Sharon and Israels supporters in America.

First, she wrote:

*In fact, it [American support for Israels actions] led Prime Minister Sharon to tell his Cabinet recently, I control America.

CAMERA conducted extensive Nexis and Internet searches, and found that no mainstream news organization reported as true the fabricated quotation.
The hoax originated with an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It said:

An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying dont worry about American pressure, we control America.

Notably, in the same press release, the direct quotation we control America changed to we the Jewish people control America.
IAP wrote:

According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying ...I want to tell you something clear, dont worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.

According to the IAP press release, the statement was reported on Kol Yisrael. However, CAMERAs calls to Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast occurred.

Geyers second problematic claim was:

Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs are all dogs...

However, here too investigation turned up no evidence that any such ad ever appeared on U.S. television.

Since the Sharon quotation and the Arabs are dogs" ad are preposterous on their face, one would have expected Geyer (and editors who publish her column) to verify their accuracy before including such inflammatory statements in her column.

Geyers piece, which is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, is known to have appeared in the Chicago Tribune and the San Diego Union Tribune.

UPDATE (June 15, 2002): Geyer Expresses "Regrets"

CAMERA notified Geyers editors that the Sharon quote originated on a pro-Hamas website (the Islamic Association for Palestine), and that it had not been corroborated by any reputable media organization. CAMERA also pointed out that IAPs alleged source, a report on Israel radio, is apparently fictional  Kol Yisrael denied to CAMERA that it had ever broadcast any such report.

When CAMERA requested substantiation from Geyer, the columnist first asserted that she was abroad and would have to check her notes when she got back home in June. After CAMERA contacted editor Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune (which ran the Geyer column), he replied:

Ms. Geyer does indeed cite the same sources you note [an Islamic Association for Palestine press release that claimed Kol Yisrael radio reported the Sharon statement] on the Sharon quote. If you have a statement or confirmation from Kol Yisrael, Id like to see it. As for the second point [concerning the alleged television ads], that is not a direct quote from an ad, but Geyers own interpretation of the nature of the content.

Informed that the Kol Yisrael reporter assigned to cover the Israeli Cabinet [where the Sharon statement was alleged to have been made] denied Sharon had made the attributed comment, Dold responded with a different story from Geyer. She now claimed that her sources were two anonymous Israelis.

Finally, Geyers syndicate disseminated the following Editors Note which appeared on June 14 in the Chicago Tribune and Sarasota Herald Tribune and will likely be published by other papers that ran Geyers May 10 column.

Editors note: Georgie Anne Geyers May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America. This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.

While the syndicate thus admitted that This quote...cannot be confirmed in independent sources, it failed to state unambiguously that Sharon never uttered the words and that the alleged quotation first appeared in a press release from the pro-Hamas IAP. Since IAP said that Kol Yisrael was their source and Kol Yisrael denies broadcasting any such report, there should be no question that IAP was attempting to perpetrate a hoax. The syndicate also should have written alleged quote whenever referring to the supposed statement by Sharon.

Furthermore, the Editors Note implies that the problem was one merely of mistaken attribution  that it would have been acceptable for Geyer to use the bogus quotation had she cited Palestinian sources. Obviously, since these sources have been proven false, the quote should not have been published at all.

Additionally, the Editors Note fails entirely to address the other baseless assertion in Geyers May 10 column, her outrageous statement: Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs are all dogs...

Repeated CAMERA requests for Geyer to identify the specific ad that led to her interpretation have gone unanswered. Clearly there is no way that her readers could have understood that she was interpreting rather than paraphrasing or quoting from a supposed ad. Since it is extremely unlikely that any U.S. television station would have broadcast any such ad, Geyer and her syndicate owe her readers another Editors Note or apology*.

CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002	by Tamar Sternthal
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> In a May 10, 2002 column (Now Isnt the Time for Bush League Moves), nationally-syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer included bogus and inflammatory allegations against Prime Minister Sharon and Israels supporters in America.
> 
> First, she wrote:
> 
> *In fact, it [American support for Israels actions] led Prime Minister Sharon to tell his Cabinet recently, I control America.
> 
> CAMERA conducted extensive Nexis and Internet searches, and found that no mainstream news organization reported as true the fabricated quotation.
> The hoax originated with an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It said:
> 
> An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying dont worry about American pressure, we control America.
> 
> Notably, in the same press release, the direct quotation we control America changed to we the Jewish people control America.
> IAP wrote:
> 
> According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying ...I want to tell you something clear, dont worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.
> 
> According to the IAP press release, the statement was reported on Kol Yisrael. However, CAMERAs calls to Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast occurred.
> 
> Geyers second problematic claim was:
> 
> Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs are all dogs...
> 
> However, here too investigation turned up no evidence that any such ad ever appeared on U.S. television.
> 
> Since the Sharon quotation and the Arabs are dogs" ad are preposterous on their face, one would have expected Geyer (and editors who publish her column) to verify their accuracy before including such inflammatory statements in her column.
> 
> Geyers piece, which is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, is known to have appeared in the Chicago Tribune and the San Diego Union Tribune.
> 
> UPDATE (June 15, 2002): Geyer Expresses "Regrets"
> 
> CAMERA notified Geyers editors that the Sharon quote originated on a pro-Hamas website (the Islamic Association for Palestine), and that it had not been corroborated by any reputable media organization. CAMERA also pointed out that IAPs alleged source, a report on Israel radio, is apparently fictional  Kol Yisrael denied to CAMERA that it had ever broadcast any such report.
> 
> When CAMERA requested substantiation from Geyer, the columnist first asserted that she was abroad and would have to check her notes when she got back home in June. After CAMERA contacted editor Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune (which ran the Geyer column), he replied:
> 
> Ms. Geyer does indeed cite the same sources you note [an Islamic Association for Palestine press release that claimed Kol Yisrael radio reported the Sharon statement] on the Sharon quote. If you have a statement or confirmation from Kol Yisrael, Id like to see it. As for the second point [concerning the alleged television ads], that is not a direct quote from an ad, but Geyers own interpretation of the nature of the content.
> 
> Informed that the Kol Yisrael reporter assigned to cover the Israeli Cabinet [where the Sharon statement was alleged to have been made] denied Sharon had made the attributed comment, Dold responded with a different story from Geyer. She now claimed that her sources were two anonymous Israelis.
> 
> Finally, Geyers syndicate disseminated the following Editors Note which appeared on June 14 in the Chicago Tribune and Sarasota Herald Tribune and will likely be published by other papers that ran Geyers May 10 column.
> 
> Editors note: Georgie Anne Geyers May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America. This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.
> 
> While the syndicate thus admitted that This quote...cannot be confirmed in independent sources, it failed to state unambiguously that Sharon never uttered the words and that the alleged quotation first appeared in a press release from the pro-Hamas IAP. Since IAP said that Kol Yisrael was their source and Kol Yisrael denies broadcasting any such report, there should be no question that IAP was attempting to perpetrate a hoax. The syndicate also should have written alleged quote whenever referring to the supposed statement by Sharon.
> 
> Furthermore, the Editors Note implies that the problem was one merely of mistaken attribution  that it would have been acceptable for Geyer to use the bogus quotation had she cited Palestinian sources. Obviously, since these sources have been proven false, the quote should not have been published at all.
> 
> Additionally, the Editors Note fails entirely to address the other baseless assertion in Geyers May 10 column, her outrageous statement: Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs are all dogs...
> 
> Repeated CAMERA requests for Geyer to identify the specific ad that led to her interpretation have gone unanswered. Clearly there is no way that her readers could have understood that she was interpreting rather than paraphrasing or quoting from a supposed ad. Since it is extremely unlikely that any U.S. television station would have broadcast any such ad, Geyer and her syndicate owe her readers another Editors Note or apology*.
> 
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
Click to expand...


*Struck a nerve, didn't I? You know he said it and it is still correct! Americans are not free but lackeys to political contributions focused by interest groups and led by AIPAC and its affiliates in money donations for the benefit of a foreign country that snubs its nose at International Laws.*


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002	by Tamar Sternthal
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> In a May 10, 2002 column (Now Isnt the Time for Bush League Moves), nationally-syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer included bogus and inflammatory allegations against Prime Minister Sharon and Israels supporters in America.
> 
> First, she wrote:
> 
> *In fact, it [American support for Israels actions] led Prime Minister Sharon to tell his Cabinet recently, I control America.
> 
> CAMERA conducted extensive Nexis and Internet searches, and found that no mainstream news organization reported as true the fabricated quotation.
> The hoax originated with an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It said:
> 
> An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying dont worry about American pressure, we control America.
> 
> Notably, in the same press release, the direct quotation we control America changed to we the Jewish people control America.
> IAP wrote:
> 
> According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying ...I want to tell you something clear, dont worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.
> 
> According to the IAP press release, the statement was reported on Kol Yisrael. However, CAMERAs calls to Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast occurred.
> 
> Geyers second problematic claim was:
> 
> Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs are all dogs...
> 
> However, here too investigation turned up no evidence that any such ad ever appeared on U.S. television.
> 
> Since the Sharon quotation and the Arabs are dogs" ad are preposterous on their face, one would have expected Geyer (and editors who publish her column) to verify their accuracy before including such inflammatory statements in her column.
> 
> Geyers piece, which is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate, is known to have appeared in the Chicago Tribune and the San Diego Union Tribune.
> 
> UPDATE (June 15, 2002): Geyer Expresses "Regrets"
> 
> CAMERA notified Geyers editors that the Sharon quote originated on a pro-Hamas website (the Islamic Association for Palestine), and that it had not been corroborated by any reputable media organization. CAMERA also pointed out that IAPs alleged source, a report on Israel radio, is apparently fictional  Kol Yisrael denied to CAMERA that it had ever broadcast any such report.
> 
> When CAMERA requested substantiation from Geyer, the columnist first asserted that she was abroad and would have to check her notes when she got back home in June. After CAMERA contacted editor Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune (which ran the Geyer column), he replied:
> 
> Ms. Geyer does indeed cite the same sources you note [an Islamic Association for Palestine press release that claimed Kol Yisrael radio reported the Sharon statement] on the Sharon quote. If you have a statement or confirmation from Kol Yisrael, Id like to see it. As for the second point [concerning the alleged television ads], that is not a direct quote from an ad, but Geyers own interpretation of the nature of the content.
> 
> Informed that the Kol Yisrael reporter assigned to cover the Israeli Cabinet [where the Sharon statement was alleged to have been made] denied Sharon had made the attributed comment, Dold responded with a different story from Geyer. She now claimed that her sources were two anonymous Israelis.
> 
> Finally, Geyers syndicate disseminated the following Editors Note which appeared on June 14 in the Chicago Tribune and Sarasota Herald Tribune and will likely be published by other papers that ran Geyers May 10 column.
> 
> Editors note: Georgie Anne Geyers May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America. This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.
> 
> While the syndicate thus admitted that This quote...cannot be confirmed in independent sources, it failed to state unambiguously that Sharon never uttered the words and that the alleged quotation first appeared in a press release from the pro-Hamas IAP. Since IAP said that Kol Yisrael was their source and Kol Yisrael denies broadcasting any such report, there should be no question that IAP was attempting to perpetrate a hoax. The syndicate also should have written alleged quote whenever referring to the supposed statement by Sharon.
> 
> Furthermore, the Editors Note implies that the problem was one merely of mistaken attribution  that it would have been acceptable for Geyer to use the bogus quotation had she cited Palestinian sources. Obviously, since these sources have been proven false, the quote should not have been published at all.
> 
> Additionally, the Editors Note fails entirely to address the other baseless assertion in Geyers May 10 column, her outrageous statement: Look at U.S. television: One minute, you see pro-Israeli ads saying the Arabs are all dogs...
> 
> Repeated CAMERA requests for Geyer to identify the specific ad that led to her interpretation have gone unanswered. Clearly there is no way that her readers could have understood that she was interpreting rather than paraphrasing or quoting from a supposed ad. Since it is extremely unlikely that any U.S. television station would have broadcast any such ad, Geyer and her syndicate owe her readers another Editors Note or apology*.
> 
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Struck a nerve, didn't I? You know he said it and it is still correct! Americans are not free but lackeys to political contributions focused by interest groups and led by AIPAC and its affiliates in money donations for the benefit of a foreign country that snubs its nose at International Laws.*
Click to expand...


Something he said was proven to be a hoax so no, you haven't struck any nerve.  You are failing big time this morning.  Have you had your coffee yet?  Better make it extra strong.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> *Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
> 
> Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
> 
> *The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two. *
> 
> USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link



The support for Israel in the US is based on lies.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziSTY408h6k]Off the Charts - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
> 
> Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
> 
> *The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two. *
> 
> USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The support for Israel in the US is based on lies.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziSTY408h6k]Off the Charts - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Another fail tinny.  You just have to look at the various boards on here to see the support for Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
> 
> Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
> 
> *The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two. *
> 
> USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The support for Israel in the US is based on lies.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziSTY408h6k]Off the Charts - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another fail tinny.  You just have to look at the various boards on here to see the support for Israel.
Click to expand...


Sure, those who are easily duped.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The support for Israel in the US is based on lies.
> 
> Off the Charts - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another fail tinny.  You just have to look at the various boards on here to see the support for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, those who are easily duped.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really scrape the barrel at times.


----------



## Kondor3

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another fail tinny.  You just have to look at the various boards on here to see the support for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those who are easily duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really scrape the barrel at times.
Click to expand...

You know Tinny...

Anything for a laugh...


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Kondor3 said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those who are easily duped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really scrape the barrel at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Tinny...
> 
> Anything for a laugh...
Click to expand...


Without him the place would be dull.  He is good entertainment.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another fail tinny.  You just have to look at the various boards on here to see the support for Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those who are easily duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really scrape the barrel at times.
Click to expand...


Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies:

The Arabs lost the 1948 war.

I have posted actual documents showing that this is not true.

The response from the easily duped is to come back with the same lie over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, again.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those who are easily duped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really scrape the barrel at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies:
> 
> The Arabs lost the 1948 war.
> 
> I have posted actual documents showing that this is not true.
> 
> The response from the easily duped is to come back with the same lie over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, over, and over, again.
Click to expand...


Here, clear your brain.  You need it.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Hate is the cement that makes you thrive as you say, but you still have not answered why the hate?_"


Incorrect.

The only "hate" manifest here is the hatred pro-Palestinian posters have for the bad situation and deep hole that they are in, trying (and failing) to convince mainstream American that the Palestinians are the good guys rather than the Israelis.

I'd hate it too, if I were King Canute, trying to sweep back the sea with a broom, like you folks are stuck doing.

Face it... anywhere in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, Russia, and even much of Central and South America... you are dealing with part of Christendom... defined today as the highly secularized lands and descendants and practitioners of the European Christian belief-system and its philosophical and legal and spiritual and cultural inheritance.

That same belief-system that Islam attacked in the 600s and 700s and which Islam has considered itself hostile-to and at-war with for 1200-1300 years now, off and on. Individuals forget. Even nations can forget, given enough time. But global common-denominator cultures and philosophies and collective memory - well, not so much.

Bottom line - with respect to 'Christendom' at large - we simply like Jews better than we like Muslims - always have, always will - and your clientele (the Palestinians) have a nasty and well-deserved reputation for heartless terrorism that simply reinforces the disdain and disgust and contempt in which they are held by most in The West and in the US.

Far too late to fix that now... certainly, too late to fix it before the other shoe drops.

Even if each and every thing that you jokers say about Israel is true - and it's not - The West would STILL take sides with the Israelis.

Because we like Jews MUCH better than we like Muslims.

Especially militant, radical, hostile Muslims with the blood of so many innocents on their hands.

The 'hate' that pro-Palestinian posters demonstrate in connection with their Bottom Dog position - and the madness that this drives them to - is amusing to many of the rest of us.

Ya'll ARE good for laughs - an endless supply of them.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

I hope it helps them too Kondor3.

Good post.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.*
> 
> According to BBC World Service's annual poll, Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world; the only states less popular are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> The survey, conducted among 26,000 people in 25 countries, found Germany to be the most popular country. 59 percent of respondents, who were asked to rate 16 countries according to how positively they impact the world, placed Germany at the top.
> 
> Only 21 percent of participants had a positive view on Israel, while 52 percent viewed the country unfavorably. Iran, in comparison, won the favorable opinion of 15 percent of those who answered the survey, while 59 percent viewed it unfavorably.
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What will matter in a few years is what people in China, Russia and the EU believe about Israel.
Click to expand...


China and Russia--the bastions of democracy and free speech!


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "...one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."


The main Arab goals of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were to...

1. destroy the infant State of Israel

2. restore Old Palestine to complete Arab control

They failed in both primary objectives.

Look up the definition of 'failure'...

Fail = lose, in the context of a contest.

Failure in war = Losing the war.

Arab failure to achieve their goals = Arabs losing the war.

Q.E.D.



> "..._I have posted actual documents showing that this is not true_..."


You have actual documents to show that...

1. the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel in 1948?

2. the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?

Cool !!!

I must've been living in Alternative Universe all these years.

Looks like I'm finally home and back to good old Reality, eh?

But... wait... what's this?... my News Feed tells me that...

1. Israel is still there; larger, and infinitely more powerful than it was in 1948.

2. the remaining Arabs in Rump Palestine are stacked five-high on each other's shoulders on two tiny slivers of land, the size of a postage stamp.

Ruh-roh, Shaggy...

NOW I'm confused...

And just when I thought I had Reality all sorted out again...

Mebbe them danged A-Rabs lost after all, and are just Funnin' the rest of us hicks...

Bummer...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> 
> 
> The main Arab goals of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were to...
> 
> 1. destroy the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restore Old Palestine to complete Arab control
> 
> They failed in both primary objectives.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'failure'...
> 
> Fail = lose, in the context of a contest.
> 
> Failure in war = Losing the war.
> 
> Arab failure to achieve their goals = Arabs losing the war.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I have posted actual documents showing that this is not true_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have actual documents to show that...
> 
> 1. the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel in 1948?
> 
> 2. the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Cool !!!
> 
> I must've been living in Alternative Universe all these years.
> 
> Looks like I'm finally home and back to good old Reality, eh?
> 
> But... wait... what's this?... my News Feed tells me that...
> 
> 1. Israel is still there; larger, and infinitely more powerful than it was in 1948.
> 
> 2. the remaining Arabs in Rump Palestine are stacked five-high on each other's shoulders on two tiny slivers of land, the size of a postage stamp.
> 
> Ruh-roh, Shaggy...
> 
> NOW I'm confused...
> 
> And just when I thought I had Reality all sorted out again...
> 
> Mebbe them danged A-Rabs lost after all, and are just Funnin' the rest of us hicks...
> 
> Bummer...
Click to expand...


They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> 
> 
> The main Arab goals of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were to...
> 
> 1. destroy the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restore Old Palestine to complete Arab control
> 
> They failed in both primary objectives.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'failure'...
> 
> Fail = lose, in the context of a contest.
> 
> Failure in war = Losing the war.
> 
> Arab failure to achieve their goals = Arabs losing the war.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I have posted actual documents showing that this is not true_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have actual documents to show that...
> 
> 1. the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel in 1948?
> 
> 2. the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Cool !!!
> 
> I must've been living in Alternative Universe all these years.
> 
> Looks like I'm finally home and back to good old Reality, eh?
> 
> But... wait... what's this?... my News Feed tells me that...
> 
> 1. Israel is still there; larger, and infinitely more powerful than it was in 1948.
> 
> 2. the remaining Arabs in Rump Palestine are stacked five-high on each other's shoulders on two tiny slivers of land, the size of a postage stamp.
> 
> Ruh-roh, Shaggy...
> 
> NOW I'm confused...
> 
> And just when I thought I had Reality all sorted out again...
> 
> Mebbe them danged A-Rabs lost after all, and are just Funnin' the rest of us hicks...
> 
> Bummer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over.
Click to expand...


I think you need Red Bull, not coffee.  Red Bull gives you wings.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over._"


This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main Arab goals of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were to...
> 
> 1. destroy the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restore Old Palestine to complete Arab control
> 
> They failed in both primary objectives.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'failure'...
> 
> Fail = lose, in the context of a contest.
> 
> Failure in war = Losing the war.
> 
> Arab failure to achieve their goals = Arabs losing the war.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> You have actual documents to show that...
> 
> 1. the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel in 1948?
> 
> 2. the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Cool !!!
> 
> I must've been living in Alternative Universe all these years.
> 
> Looks like I'm finally home and back to good old Reality, eh?
> 
> But... wait... what's this?... my News Feed tells me that...
> 
> 1. Israel is still there; larger, and infinitely more powerful than it was in 1948.
> 
> 2. the remaining Arabs in Rump Palestine are stacked five-high on each other's shoulders on two tiny slivers of land, the size of a postage stamp.
> 
> Ruh-roh, Shaggy...
> 
> NOW I'm confused...
> 
> And just when I thought I had Reality all sorted out again...
> 
> Mebbe them danged A-Rabs lost after all, and are just Funnin' the rest of us hicks...
> 
> Bummer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need Red Bull, not coffee.  Red Bull gives you wings.
Click to expand...


Is this the *deflection* forum?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over._"
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.
Click to expand...


Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over._"
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.
Click to expand...


Great line!


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over._"
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.
Click to expand...

Only in the fevered brains of those who indulge in self-delusion, Tinny.

Oh, and, I think we can safely put to bed now, the question of whether the Arabs lost the 1948 War.

Israel 1, Arabs 0.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need Red Bull, not coffee.  Red Bull gives you wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the *deflection* forum?
Click to expand...


Just trying to encourage you to type something sensible.  Caffeine helps sharpen your brain.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in the fevered brains of those who indulge in self-delusion, Tinny.
> 
> Oh, and, I think we can safely put to bed now, the question of whether the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> Israel 1, Arabs 0.
Click to expand...


Can you document that?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the fevered brains of those who indulge in self-delusion, Tinny.
> 
> Oh, and, I think we can safely put to bed now, the question of whether the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> Israel 1, Arabs 0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
Click to expand...

Just did, Tinny.

The State of Israel exists; the Arabs did not succeed in destroying it in its infancy.

The Arabs only occupy a tiny fraction of Old Palestine; the Arabs did not succeed in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control.

Nothing more is required.

If you can prove that the Arabs destroyed Israel in its infancy, or that the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, then please feel free to demonstrate that Alternate Reality to the whole class.

Now, repeat after me...

"OK, OK, OK... dammit... ya got me on that one... from the mainstream rational perspective, the Arabs DID lose the 1948 War."

There... now... don't you feel better... and more rational?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the fevered brains of those who indulge in self-delusion, Tinny.
> 
> Oh, and, I think we can safely put to bed now, the question of whether the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> Israel 1, Arabs 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just did, Tinny.
> 
> The State of Israel exists; the Arabs did not succeed in destroying it in its infancy.
> 
> The Arabs only occupy a tiny fraction of Old Palestine; the Arabs did not succeed in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Nothing more is required.
> 
> If you can prove that the Arabs destroyed Israel in its infancy, or that the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, then please feel free to demonstrate that Alternate Reality to the whole class.
> 
> Now, repeat after me...
> 
> "OK, OK, OK... dammit... ya got me on that one... from the mainstream rational perspective, the Arabs DID lose the 1948 War."
> 
> There... now... don't you feel better... and more rational?
Click to expand...


*Nice dodge. Where are the documents?*


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Nice dodge. Where are the documents?_"


No dodge, Tinny.

The main Arab goals in the 1948 War were to...

1. destroy the infant State of Israel

2. restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control

The Arabs failed in both goals.

Consequently, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.

The State of Israel still exists, larger and vastly stronger than in 1948.

The Arabs of Palestine are jammed into two small and ever-shrinking enclaves.

Documents?

What documents?

Take your nose out of your computer screen and look at the world around you.

Unless, of course, you require a 'link' to the Real World.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> 
> 
> The main Arab goals of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were to...
> 
> 1. destroy the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restore Old Palestine to complete Arab control
> 
> They failed in both primary objectives.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'failure'...
> 
> Fail = lose, in the context of a contest.
> 
> Failure in war = Losing the war.
> 
> Arab failure to achieve their goals = Arabs losing the war.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I have posted actual documents showing that this is not true_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have actual documents to show that...
> 
> 1. the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel in 1948?
> 
> 2. the Arabs restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Cool !!!
> 
> I must've been living in Alternative Universe all these years.
> 
> Looks like I'm finally home and back to good old Reality, eh?
> 
> But... wait... what's this?... my News Feed tells me that...
> 
> 1. Israel is still there; larger, and infinitely more powerful than it was in 1948.
> 
> 2. the remaining Arabs in Rump Palestine are stacked five-high on each other's shoulders on two tiny slivers of land, the size of a postage stamp.
> 
> Ruh-roh, Shaggy...
> 
> NOW I'm confused...
> 
> And just when I thought I had Reality all sorted out again...
> 
> Mebbe them danged A-Rabs lost after all, and are just Funnin' the rest of us hicks...
> 
> Bummer...
Click to expand...


I don't know about that Rump Palestine part.  Unfortunately, there are still miles and miles you can travel in the West Bank where you hear only Arabic.  Despite all the youtubes, photos and Wikipedia articles someone can bone up on, there's still no subtitute for actually visiting a place.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Nice dodge. Where are the documents?_"
> 
> 
> 
> No dodge, Tinny.
> 
> The main Arab goals in the 1948 War were to...
> 
> 1. destroy the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control
> 
> The Arabs failed in both goals.
> 
> Consequently, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> The State of Israel still exists, larger and infinitely stronger than ever.
> 
> The Arabs of Palestine are jammed into two small and ever-shrinking enclaves.
> 
> Documents?
> 
> What documents?
> 
> Take your nose out of your computer screen and look at the world around you.
> 
> Unless, of course, you require a 'link' to the Real World.
Click to expand...




> Documents?
> 
> What documents?



Indeed, all you have is say so.

*No documents.*


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What documents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, all you have is say so. No documents.
Click to expand...

Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?

Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?

Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?

Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?

Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?

Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What documents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, all you have is say so. No documents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?
> 
> Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?
Click to expand...


Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.

I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, all you have is say so. No documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?
> 
> Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.
> 
> I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.
Click to expand...

That was not what you and I were talking about.

You and I were talking about the Arabs having lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Don't look now, but you've just had your butt kicked on that one.

Focus, grasshopper... focus...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?
> 
> Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.
> 
> I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was not what you and I were talking about.
> 
> You and I were talking about the Arabs having lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Don't look now, but you've just had your butt kicked on that one.
> 
> Focus, grasshopper... focus...
Click to expand...


You have not documented when Israel has won anything.

You are the one dancing around that issue.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.
> 
> I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> That was not what you and I were talking about.
> 
> You and I were talking about the Arabs having lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Don't look now, but you've just had your butt kicked on that one.
> 
> Focus, grasshopper... focus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
Click to expand...

The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.

I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.

They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.

They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.

Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.

This wasn't about proving that Israel won.

This was about proving that the Arabs lost.

And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.

Gotcha.

Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.

If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was not what you and I were talking about.
> 
> You and I were talking about the Arabs having lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Don't look now, but you've just had your butt kicked on that one.
> 
> Focus, grasshopper... focus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.
> 
> I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.
> 
> They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.
> 
> They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.
> 
> This wasn't about proving that Israel won.
> 
> This was about proving that the Arabs lost.
> 
> And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.
> 
> If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.
Click to expand...


You are just blowing smoke.

You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.

Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._They kept Israel from legally being created and the war is not over._"
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.
Click to expand...


Is this the making things up forum?

You cant just make up your own questions and then act that without an answer , that you are correct. 

Israel was lawfully created after cessation of the mandate. Where did you read that was illegal? Why do you make stuff up all the time?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.
> 
> I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.
> 
> They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.
> 
> They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.
> 
> This wasn't about proving that Israel won.
> 
> This was about proving that the Arabs lost.
> 
> And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.
> 
> If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
Click to expand...


Youre not normal. You make stuff up all the time without backing up your statements. 
You hate Israel, and just like the Palestinians you try to de legitimize their existence. Luckily, all of us here already know you have no credibility, acter being wrong about an incredible amount of things. For fucks sake , you didnt even know when Palestine became a country lolol


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.
> 
> I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.
> 
> They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.
> 
> They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.
> 
> This wasn't about proving that Israel won.
> 
> This was about proving that the Arabs lost.
> 
> And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.
> 
> If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
Click to expand...


WhT kind of document are you looking for?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.
> 
> I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.
> 
> They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.
> 
> They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.
> 
> This wasn't about proving that Israel won.
> 
> This was about proving that the Arabs lost.
> 
> And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.
> 
> If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
Click to expand...

The point of contention between you and I is whether or not the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The Arabs failed to meet their two primary war objectives...

1. the destruction of the infant State of Israel

2. the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control.

I do not need to document Israel winning anything.

I do not need to document the Palestinians losing anything.

I merely need to demonstrate that the pan-Arab War effort of 1948 against Israel failed to meet its two primary objectives, and served-up the following two facts as evidence:

1. Israel exists.

2. Israel controls most of Old Palestine, rather than the Arabs.

In the exchange between you and I, here in this thread, within the past hour or two, in which you asserted that the Arabs losing the 1948 War was an Israeli lie, and me challenging that assertion...

I have demonstrated that the Arabs failed to meet their war objectives.

I have demonstrated that failure to meet war objectives constitutes losing a war.

Ergo, I have demonstrated that the Arabs lost the 1948 War.

That was the extent of my mission and effort here, during the course of this sequence.

Mission accomplished.

Twist, squirm and wiggle in the wind, on that hook, all you like.

Sadly - and, strangely, happily, at the same time...

In the context of this sequence between us this morning...

I win...

You lose...

End of sequence.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> "..._WhT kind of document are you looking for?_"


That's Tinnys Standard-Issue Panic Response, whenever he's backed into a corner, and can't think of any other way out.

In the narrow context of the Arabs losing the 1948 War and his claim that that was an Israeli lie and the counterpointing sequence just concluded... he's just had his ass kicked... and he knows it... I know it... you know it... we all know it... he just can't bring himself to admit it publicly.


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._WhT kind of document are you looking for?_"
> 
> 
> 
> That's Tinnys Standard-Issue Panic Response, whenever he's backed into a corner, and can't think of any other way out.
> 
> In the narrow context of the Arabs losing the 1948 War and his claim that that was an Israeli lie and the counterpointing sequence just concluded... he's just had his ass kicked... and he knows it... I know it... you know it... we all know it... he just can't bring himself to admit it publicly.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what Ive been saying.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

I often read tinny's posts are my jaw drops open in astonishment.


----------



## aris2chat

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Lebanon
> 
> There is an armistice line between Israel and Syria
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Egypt
> 
> There is an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED border between Israel and Jordan
> 
> Palestine has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> Syria has refused to take part in peace talks repeatedly
> 
> That is why the west bank is occupied under International Law and will stay that way until peace has been agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking the question. You only mentioned two of my points and got both of them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe Syria was involved in the Madrid Conference.
Click to expand...


correct


----------



## Indeependent

The next time Israel goes to war (hopefully, that will never be), Israel must completley wipe out the enemy to every last man, woman and child.

When the world screams, we will simply show them Tinny's postings that if an enemy doesn't surrender, it has the right to continuously attack.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.
> 
> I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.
> 
> They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.
> 
> They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.
> 
> This wasn't about proving that Israel won.
> 
> This was about proving that the Arabs lost.
> 
> And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.
> 
> If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WhT kind of document are you looking for?
Click to expand...


There are several facts about Palestine.

The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.

The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.

Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.

This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.

These natives of Palestine had certain rights:



> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237



Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"


None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Click to expand...


That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.


----------



## Indeependent

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Click to expand...


Tin has zero regard for historical context.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
Click to expand...


The world is catching on to Israel...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

In most cases, of a political question, there is a "technically correct" answer --- and there is an "Practical Interpretation" of that to that answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.


*(COMMENT)*

Relative to these discussion, we all understand that there are "Die Hards" on all three aspect angles.  One of the aspect angles is the "absolute pro-Palestinian" that will stretch any truth to achieve the agenda they (personally) desire.

a.  The Palestinian that cannot accept any vantage point other than:
"You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing."  (_*SOURCE: *_ This Post Quote Above, Posting 2449)


b.  The Palestinian that holds the same agenda, but looks at the reality of the facts and the history of the events rationally.
"On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."  (*SOURCE:* The PLO NAD Official Position)


For a "objective view," we have to take in the each "die hard view" --- strip-out the emotional commentary and propaganda driven accents, and give due consideration to the evaluation of the salient points which remain.  And from that aspect, technically, the consequences of accepting the "No-Win/No Lose" vantage point is that there still exists a state of conflict between the Palestinians - as a culture - and the Palestinians - as a nation.  And thus, some sort of a treaty or other peaceful accommodation is preferred, but not required.  

In acceptance of one viewpoint over the other, only modifies the set of dilemmas that need addressed.  Neither side holds the advantage when attempting to resolve for an equitable solution.  Even the concept of there existing a possible "equatable solution" is placed in doubt.   This is particularly aggravated when starting the discussion on the basis of the 1967-War boundaries (Pre-War, Post-War); then in the middle of the Occupation, the allowance of Independence to be established.  

It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost.  Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct.  They were not a true party to the conflict.  The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other).  The West Bank Palestinians were Jordanians --- and Gaza was occupied territory under Egypt.  The Palestinians had no say in the outcome of the battle or the post-War arrangements; they were part of the hostile indigenous population over the territory in which the battle was fought.

SO!  Is our friend PF Tinmore correct when he says:  "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing."  YES!  The conflict was not between Israel and the Palestinians.  The conflict was between Egypt and Israel on one hand; resolved by treaty.  On the other hand, the conflict was between Jordan and Israel; also resolved by treaty.  It was the responsibility of the Arab League States that were party to the conflict (Jordan and Egypt) to look after the interests of the indigenous population (called Palestinians).  But, the Palestinians technically lost nothing.  Only Egypt and Jordan lost something.  And that ground was taken into consideration in the establishment of international boundaries in each treaty.

Israel did not assume authority over the territories by means of force.  The authority was assumed under the color of the treaty.  It was then Israel which allowed the Palestinians the right of self-determination and establish the independent State of Palestine; pursuant to their Declaration.

SO!  The issue put forth by our friend PF Tinmore is a flawed question, leading to a flawed answer.  The reason you cannot find a document that stipulates a win/loss position is because the Palestinians were not a party to the conflict.  It's a trick question _(a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition; AKA: a loaded question)_.

*THE LOADED QUESTION:*
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
*THE DILEMMA:*
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."


This loaded question is flawed for a number of reasons; least of which is that it presupposes that I'm married.  Just as the PF Tinmore question is flawed; it presupposes that Palestinians were a party to the conflict.  And only a party to the conflict can win or lose.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WhT kind of document are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
Click to expand...


Nothing you said has anything to do with anything. Like I said, you made up the fact that Israel needs documents to create their state. 
Where dis you read that Palestinians had to cede land to Israel for Israel to legally create a state? This is not a real estate issue. Its a matter of self determination, and Israel legally declared independence after cessation of the mandate. They created their country legally, as ive shown you in that link many times. Israel is inside the green line, and even you admitted that the PLO recognizes them inside the green line. 
I repeat, the whole " there are no documents showing how Israel recieved land from the Palestinians" is a made up question". 
Have you read about Israels DOI and if so show me the link you use


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
Click to expand...


Keep making up these comments , youre doing a great job


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> In most cases, of a political question, there is a "technically correct" answer --- and there is an "Practical Interpretation" of that to that answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Relative to these discussion, we all understand that there are "Die Hards" on all three aspect angles.  One of the aspect angles is the "absolute pro-Palestinian" that will stretch any truth to achieve the agenda they (personally) desire.
> 
> a.  The Palestinian that cannot accept any vantage point other than:
> "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing."  (_*SOURCE: *_ This Post Quote Above, Posting 2449)
> 
> 
> b.  The Palestinian that holds the same agenda, but looks at the reality of the facts and the history of the events rationally.
> "On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine."  (*SOURCE:* The PLO NAD Official Position)
> 
> 
> For a "objective view," we have to take in the each "die hard view" --- strip-out the emotional commentary and propaganda driven accents, and give due consideration to the evaluation of the salient points which remain.  And from that aspect, technically, the consequences of accepting the "No-Win/No Lose" vantage point is that there still exists a state of conflict between the Palestinians - as a culture - and the Palestinians - as a nation.  And thus, some sort of a treaty or other peaceful accommodation is preferred, but not required.
> 
> In acceptance of one viewpoint over the other, only modifies the set of dilemmas that need addressed.  Neither side holds the advantage when attempting to resolve for an equitable solution.  Even the concept of there existing a possible "equatable solution" is placed in doubt.   This is particularly aggravated when starting the discussion on the basis of the 1967-War boundaries (Pre-War, Post-War); then in the middle of the Occupation, the allowance of Independence to be established.
> 
> It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost.  Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct.  They were not a true party to the conflict.  The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other).  The West Bank Palestinians were Jordanians --- and Gaza was occupied territory under Egypt.  The Palestinians had no say in the outcome of the battle or the post-War arrangements; they were part of the hostile indigenous population over the territory in which the battle was fought.
> 
> SO!  Is our friend PF Tinmore correct when he says:  "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing."  YES!  The conflict was not between Israel and the Palestinians.  The conflict was between Egypt and Israel on one hand; resolved by treaty.  On the other hand, the conflict was between Jordan and Israel; also resolved by treaty.  It was the responsibility of the Arab League States that were party to the conflict (Jordan and Egypt) to look after the interests of the indigenous population (called Palestinians).  But, the Palestinians technically lost nothing.  Only Egypt and Jordan lost something.  And that ground was taken into consideration in the establishment of international boundaries in each treaty.
> 
> Israel did not assume authority over the territories by means of force.  The authority was assumed under the color of the treaty.  It was then Israel which allowed the Palestinians the right of self-determination and establish the independent State of Palestine; pursuant to their Declaration.
> 
> SO!  The issue put forth by our friend PF Tinmore is a flawed question, leading to a flawed answer.  The reason you cannot find a document that stipulates a win/loss position is because the Palestinians were not a party to the conflict.  It's a trick question _(a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition; AKA: a loaded question)_.
> 
> *THE LOADED QUESTION:*
> "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
> *THE DILEMMA:*
> "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
> "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
> 
> 
> This loaded question is flawed for a number of reasons; least of which is that it presupposes that I'm married.  Just as the PF Tinmore question is flawed; it presupposes that Palestinians were a party to the conflict.  And only a party to the conflict can win or lose.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Exactly! One of Tinmores tactics is making up questions and the  acts like without an answer, that he is correct.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep making up these comments , youre doing a great job
Click to expand...


The legal documents are as follows:

Israel's Declaration of Independence.
Israel's Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
Israel's Acceptance into the United Nations.


----------



## toastman

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep making up these comments , youre doing a great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The legal documents are as follows:
> 
> Israel's Declaration of Independence.
> Israel's Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
> Israel's Acceptance into the United Nations.
Click to expand...


And the peace treaties giving Israel internationally recognized borders with Evypt and Jordan, as written by the UN


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pomp Victus das ass, no-ne has surrendered to Israel to date...
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had to surrender to Israel.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to obey the laws of gravity and to fall down in 1967 when the Israelis killed them.
> 
> The Jordanians merely had to run in 1967 when the Israelis drove them out.
> 
> The Palestinians merely had to stop resisting effectively, militarily, alongside the Jordanians in 1967, when the Israelis overwhelmed them.
> 
> Surrender is a minor point and of no particular consequence.
> 
> Overarching control is all that matters.
> 
> And Israel has overarching control... and has... since 1967.
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, so long as Israel does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._she is basically de-legitimizing her-self as we speak_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, as bad as all that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
> 
> Somehow, *I don't think they're overly worried about such things.*
> We've got their back... Obumble or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PressTV - Israel worries US boycott could go contagious
> 
> *Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars, saying other academic organizations in the United States could take similar action. *On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA), which has nearly 5,000 members, approved the academic boycott of Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinians, indicating that a movement to isolate the apartheid regime of Israel that is gaining momentum in Europe has also hit the US.
> 
> "The ASA condemns the United States' significant role in aiding and abetting Israel's violations of human rights against Palestinians and its occupation of Palestinian lands through its use of the veto in the UN Security Council," the organization said in a statement explaining the endorsement.
Click to expand...


Irani TV really?


----------



## Kondor3

Indeependent said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tin has zero regard for historical context.
Click to expand...

Tinny has zero regard for historical FACT.

Or the Real World, by the look of it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost. *Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct.* They were not a true party to the conflict. The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other).



Exactly! How much land can Canada lose in a war between the US and Mexico?

It is ridiculous to even contemplate it.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
Click to expand...


The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.

The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...



P F Tinmore said:


> "...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."



The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.

We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...

1. destruction of the infant State of Israel

2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control

The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.

Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.

As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:

1. Israel still exists

2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.

These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.

The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.

Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.

This is Reality.

There is no appeal.

Case closed.

Sequence concluded.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.
> 
> We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...
> 
> 1. destruction of the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.
> 
> Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.
> 
> As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:
> 
> 1. Israel still exists
> 
> 2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.
> 
> These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.
> 
> Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> This is Reality.
> 
> There is no appeal.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Sequence concluded.
Click to expand...


Of course the 1948 war was a different war than the one started against the Palestinians but we will look at it anyway.

An armistice was called by UN Security Council Resolution. An armistice is the cessation of hostilities without anyone surrendering. None of those Arab countries lost any land due to that war.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, all you have is say so. No documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?
> 
> Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.
> 
> I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.
Click to expand...





 Did the UN and the majority of the worlds nations accept Israel's declaration of independence and accept them as a LEGITIMATE state in the eyes of the world. Have they been accepted into the UN as charter members. That is their legitimacy and you can only muster 32 countries the majority muslim that don't accept Israel. Even the arab league now accepts Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist as a Jewish state and homeland.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.
> 
> I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> That was not what you and I were talking about.
> 
> You and I were talking about the Arabs having lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Don't look now, but you've just had your butt kicked on that one.
> 
> Focus, grasshopper... focus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
Click to expand...




Have you documented when Israel have lost anything then, if not then it is a stalemate. But in 1949 Israel gained control of 78% of Palestine, and it was legitimised a resounding victory in the worlds eyes.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not documented when Israel has won anything.
> 
> You are the one dancing around that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.
> 
> I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.
> 
> They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.
> 
> They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.
> 
> Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.
> 
> This wasn't about proving that Israel won.
> 
> This was about proving that the Arabs lost.
> 
> And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.
> 
> If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
Click to expand...





Isreal won land in 1948, Palestine lost what they could have had. That is a documented victory for Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the making things up forum?
> 
> You cant just make up your own questions and then act that without an answer , that you are correct.
> 
> Israel was lawfully created after cessation of the mandate. Where did you read that was illegal? Why do you make stuff up all the time?
Click to expand...





 If as the moron states Israel has no legal status then it does not have to abide by the Geneva conventions or the UN charter and could bomb the Palestinians all the way to mecca.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Phoenall said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has a lot of *political* recognition but it has no legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the making things up forum?
> 
> You cant just make up your own questions and then act that without an answer , that you are correct.
> 
> Israel was lawfully created after cessation of the mandate. Where did you read that was illegal? Why do you make stuff up all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If as the moron states Israel has no legal status then it does not have to abide by the Geneva conventions or the UN charter and could bomb the Palestinians all the way to mecca.
Click to expand...


Good point.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

This whole discussion reminds me of an Abstract Philosophy course I took in college.  It was a mandatory course I had to take, although it had nothing to do with my major.  It was all about --is a chair in the room really there, or is it just in the person's mind?  Try as I could, I could never satisfy that professor and the smug prick gave me a C.  Y'all will never pass Prof. Tinmore's course, so y'all shouldn't even try.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.
> 
> We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...
> 
> 1. destruction of the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.
> 
> Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.
> 
> As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:
> 
> 1. Israel still exists
> 
> 2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.
> 
> These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.
> 
> Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> This is Reality.
> 
> There is no appeal.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Sequence concluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the 1948 war was a different war than the one started against the Palestinians but we will look at it anyway...
Click to expand...

It was *YOU* who identified the war-in-question (1948) and *YOU* who asserted that its loss by the Arabs was an Israeli lie, in *your first post in the sequence*, not me.



> "..._An armistice was called by UN Security Council Resolution_..."


True.



> "..._An armistice is the cessation of hostilities without anyone surrendering_..."


One does not have to surrender, in order to lose a war.

One merely has to fail to attain one's war objectives.



> "..._None of those Arab countries lost any land due to that war._"


One does not have to lose any land to lose a war.

One merely has to fail to attain one's war objectives.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.
> 
> We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...
> 
> 1. destruction of the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.
> 
> Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.
> 
> As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:
> 
> 1. Israel still exists
> 
> 2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.
> 
> These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.
> 
> Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> This is Reality.
> 
> There is no appeal.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Sequence concluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the 1948 war was a different war than the one started against the Palestinians but we will look at it anyway.
> 
> An armistice was called by UN Security Council Resolution. An armistice is the cessation of hostilities without anyone surrendering. None of those Arab countries lost any land due to that war.
Click to expand...


What is the name of this war started against the Palestinians? When did it start? Link?


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?
> 
> Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?
> 
> Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.
> 
> I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the UN and the majority of the worlds nations accept Israel's declaration of independence and accept them as a LEGITIMATE state in the eyes of the world. Have they been accepted into the UN as charter members. That is their legitimacy and you can only muster 32 countries the majority muslim that don't accept Israel. Even the arab league now accepts Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist as a Jewish state and homeland.
Click to expand...


if push comes to shove the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has 57 members that can be rallied


----------



## Phoenall

Indeependent said:


> The next time Israel goes to war (hopefully, that will never be), Israel must completley wipe out the enemy to every last man, woman and child.
> 
> When the world screams, we will simply show them Tinny's postings that if an enemy doesn't surrender, it has the right to continuously attack.






 Not forgetting his claim that it has no legal legitimacy and so is not bound by the UN charter, International law and the Geneva conventions


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blowing smoke.
> 
> You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WhT kind of document are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
Click to expand...





 For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders. As proven before the Palestinians were not mentioned in the treaty and the citizenship laws gave them the title of British Palestinians.

 The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation. The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever. 

 It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land._"
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
Click to expand...





Israel won the right to a state as accepted by all but 32 of the UN nations. Under International law Israel is now legitimate while Palestine still wanders in the wilderness and has no legal entity. Isreal occupies Israel as defined by the UN and the mandate of Palestine, and as your source says now that the land has become Israel the citizens are now Israeli's.

 You did not think for one second that your source would not be used against you and legitimise Israel.

 YOU LOSE AGAIN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost. *Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct.* They were not a true party to the conflict. The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! How much land can Canada lose in a war between the US and Mexico?
> 
> It is ridiculous to even contemplate it.
Click to expand...






More to the point because the Palestinians were involved in the war they lost something they never had. They knew they had lost by the August and tried to gain everything by making a declaration of independence on all the land. Because of Israel's prior claim and the outside interference of the arab league their declaration was not upheld. So they lost much of the land they could have had because of their greed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.
> 
> The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.
> 
> We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...
> 
> 1. destruction of the infant State of Israel
> 
> 2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.
> 
> Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.
> 
> As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:
> 
> 1. Israel still exists
> 
> 2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.
> 
> These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.
> 
> The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.
> 
> Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.
> 
> This is Reality.
> 
> There is no appeal.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Sequence concluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the 1948 war was a different war than the one started against the Palestinians but we will look at it anyway.
> 
> An armistice was called by UN Security Council Resolution. An armistice is the cessation of hostilities without anyone surrendering. None of those Arab countries lost any land due to that war.
Click to expand...






Only the land that was destined for the arab state, under the legal auspices of the MANDATE administered by Great Britain.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty lame when you use the ADL to support Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough for you.
> ADL also not good enough for you.
> So here is McLaughlin Associates (polling organization).
> 
> 
> Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel
> 
> ZOA poll reveals that most Americans - even those outside Jewish communities - oppose Washington's anti-Israel policies.
> 
> 
> By Tova Dvorin
> First Publish: 1/27/2014, 8:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> The White House's recent policies against Israel do not reflect the will of the American people, according to a recent poll.
> 
> The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) released the results of a nationwide survey this month revealing that the vast majority of Americans support Israel on nearly every major issue addressed in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
> 
> The survey recorded the responses of over 1000 American citizens from various populations - not just the Jewish community - and was conducted by McLaughlin Associates, a well-known polling organization.
> 
> Among those polled in the representative sample, 46% of respondents were Protestant, 30% were Catholic, and 3.6% were Jewish; by ethnicity, 13% were African Americans, 12% were Hispanics, 3% were Asian, and 70% were Caucasian, according to the organization. The religious and ethnic breakdown reflects the American population as a whole.
> 
> The survey also attempted to cover the political spectrum; 42% of respondents identified themselves as Republican, and 41% as Democrats.
> 
> Based on the poll, a majority - 51% - of Americans believe that US President Barack Obama has not done all he can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 28% who believe that he has.
> 
> A large majority of Americans - 59% - believe that the stronger sanctions should be imposed on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 17% who say the West should weaken sanctions on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons.
> 
> 47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live in Judea and Samaria (Shomron); among other reasons, Israel will be better able to defend itself with a large population living in that region. Only 14% of Americans believe that only Palestinian Arabs should have the right to live in the region.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of 72% of Americans oppose Obamas plan to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) $440 million in a plan recently proposed by the President, as opposed to a mere 15% who believe that he should.
> 
> A large majority of 55% of Americans say that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Just 13% believe it should not. In addition,  63% of Americans believe that the PA should recognize Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, whereas only 11% believe it should not.
> 
> The most surprising statistic: only 31% of Americans believe that President Barack Obama is a close and reliable friend of Israel, as opposed to 38% who believe that he is not. The numbers stand in stark contradiction to the widespread belief that most Americans - and, until recently, most Israelis - believe that the US is Israel's strongest ally.
> 
> ZOA National President Morton A. Klein welcomed the news.
> 
> The results of this latest, very detailed and highly representative survey of American opinion show gratifyingly high, indeed, overwhelming levels of support for positions Israel takes, as opposed to the position the Obama Administration takes," Klein said. "It also shows an understanding of the dangers Israel faces from a terror-sponsoring Palestinian Authority."
> 
> Americans believe by an overwhelming ratio that Israeli Jews have a right to live in Judea/Samaria, whereas only a small percentage believe in the racist, anti-Semitic Palestinian position that only Palestinians have the right to live there," he continued.  Large majorities of Americans clearly understand that a Palestinian state, if established, will not live in peace with Israel and will simply be another Mideast terrorist state.
> 
> President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should heed these results," Klein implored. "They should understand that the American people expect our government to support Israel; stop promoting a Palestinian state; stop condemning Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as illegitimate; support Jerusalem as Israels undivided capital; stop funding the PA and impose stronger sanctions on Iran to persuade it to terminate its nuclear weapons program."
> 
> Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel - News from America - News - Israel National News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ADL was bad enough, but now you use the Israeli National News? You just took the pole position as Airhead #1!
Click to expand...


The half-wit who posted an Iranian PressTV blog site in support of his hate has no business referring to anyone as Airhead, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*
Click to expand...


Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess? 

The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.

Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim, IAP failed to record it and no one else on the planet heard it. How convenient.

No wonder someone like you would buy into it.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty lame when you use the ADL to support Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gallup not good enough for you.
> ADL also not good enough for you.
> So here is McLaughlin Associates (polling organization).
> 
> 
> Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel
> 
> ZOA poll reveals that most Americans - even those outside Jewish communities - oppose Washington's anti-Israel policies.
> 
> 
> By Tova Dvorin
> First Publish: 1/27/2014, 8:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> The White House's recent policies against Israel do not reflect the will of the American people, according to a recent poll.
> 
> The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) released the results of a nationwide survey this month revealing that the vast majority of Americans support Israel on nearly every major issue addressed in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
> 
> The survey recorded the responses of over 1000 American citizens from various populations - not just the Jewish community - *and was conducted by McLaughlin Associates, a well-known polling organization. *
> 
> Among those polled in the representative sample, 46% of respondents were Protestant, 30% were Catholic, and 3.6% were Jewish; by ethnicity, 13% were African Americans, 12% were Hispanics, 3% were Asian, and 70% were Caucasian, according to the organization. The religious and ethnic breakdown reflects the American population as a whole.
> 
> The survey also attempted to cover the political spectrum; 42% of respondents identified themselves as Republican, and 41% as Democrats.
> 
> Based on the poll, a majority - 51% - of Americans believe that US President Barack Obama has not done all he can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 28% who believe that he has.
> 
> A large majority of Americans - 59% - believe that the stronger sanctions should be imposed on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 17% who say the West should weaken sanctions on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons.
> 
> 47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live in Judea and Samaria (Shomron); among other reasons, Israel will be better able to defend itself with a large population living in that region. Only 14% of Americans believe that only Palestinian Arabs should have the right to live in the region.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of 72% of Americans oppose Obamas plan to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) $440 million in a plan recently proposed by the President, as opposed to a mere 15% who believe that he should.
> 
> A large majority of 55% of Americans say that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Just 13% believe it should not. In addition,  63% of Americans believe that the PA should recognize Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, whereas only 11% believe it should not.
> 
> The most surprising statistic: only 31% of Americans believe that President Barack Obama is a close and reliable friend of Israel, as opposed to 38% who believe that he is not. The numbers stand in stark contradiction to the widespread belief that most Americans - and, until recently, most Israelis - believe that the US is Israel's strongest ally.
> 
> ZOA National President Morton A. Klein welcomed the news.
> 
> The results of this latest, very detailed and highly representative survey of American opinion show gratifyingly high, indeed, overwhelming levels of support for positions Israel takes, as opposed to the position the Obama Administration takes," Klein said. "It also shows an understanding of the dangers Israel faces from a terror-sponsoring Palestinian Authority."
> 
> Americans believe by an overwhelming ratio that Israeli Jews have a right to live in Judea/Samaria, whereas only a small percentage believe in the racist, anti-Semitic Palestinian position that only Palestinians have the right to live there," he continued.  Large majorities of Americans clearly understand that a Palestinian state, if established, will not live in peace with Israel and will simply be another Mideast terrorist state.
> 
> President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should heed these results," Klein implored. "They should understand that the American people expect our government to support Israel; stop promoting a Palestinian state; stop condemning Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as illegitimate; support Jerusalem as Israels undivided capital; stop funding the PA and impose stronger sanctions on Iran to persuade it to terminate its nuclear weapons program."
> 
> Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel - News from America - News - Israel National News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ADL was bad enough, but now you use the Israeli National News? You just took the pole position as Airhead #1!
Click to expand...


INN just reported the story.  As you will see from the text above the survey was carried out by *McLaughlin Associates*.  In your hurry to prove yourself right you prove you are just brilliant at digging yourself into a hole.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take the US's views on Israel as posted in three separate surveys above.  That's all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
Click to expand...


Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.

The link for those who want to know more.
CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WhT kind of document are you looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders. As proven before the Palestinians were not mentioned in the treaty and the citizenship laws gave them the title of British Palestinians.
> 
> The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation. The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.
Click to expand...


Most of us are concerned about the rights of Christians, they are mostly Palestinians and Arabs and suffer the same discrimination and aggression at the hands of the Jews. (except for the Russian immigrants that couldn't pass the racial tests and were not qualified to be Jewish)  Not recognizing this fact makes you a ZIOFACSIST GENTILE HATING RACIST . To use your own debating techniques, do you think such childishness helps the debate?


----------



## Kondor3

It seems to be a recurrent theme amongst them...

Only believing what they want to...

Rather than what is...


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharon said "We Control America," he was correct! AIPAC rules, but things are changing with the young Internet generation, they will remove this Cancer with Campaign Finance reforms.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.
> 
> The link for those who want to know more.
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
Click to expand...


CAMERA is a Zionist propaganda site, worthless as a source of information.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.
> 
> The link for those who want to know more.
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAMERA is a Zionist propaganda site, worthless as a source of information.
Click to expand...


Awww ickle wickle montelatici doesn't like truths.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.
> 
> The link for those who want to know more.
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAMERA is a Zionist propaganda site, worthless as a source of information.
Click to expand...


Prove it


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.
> 
> The link for those who want to know more.
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAMERA is a Zionist propaganda site, worthless as a source of information.
Click to expand...


To be a Zionist is not something to be ashamed of.


----------



## SAYIT

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.
> 
> The link for those who want to know more.
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAMERA is a Zionist propaganda site, worthless as a source of information.
Click to expand...


The alleged Sharon quote was reported by something called The Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization founded by a Hamas operative, which failed to provide any substantiation. They heard it from a cousin of a friend's mom in Hebron. Now *there's* a credible source of info.


----------



## toastman

Why are so many pro Palestinians so delusional?? Why do they ignore the truth? Why do they constantly distort facts and re write history? 
I seriously dont get it


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

Don't get all excited my pro-Palestinian friend.  GlobeScan/PIPA did the poll, titled "Views of China and India Slide While UKs Ratings Climb: Global Poll;"conducted between December 2012 and April 2013 and relayed in the general findings. 
GlobalScan/PIPA are usually pretty good.  But you have to remember that of the entire Arab League, no other Middle East country even made the poll.  (WHY?)

Public Narrowly Backs UN Recognition of Palestine: Global Poll 

The poll of 20,446 citizens conducted by GlobeScan shows that, while the public is five to  two in favour, with three undecided, in only nine countries is there an outright majority of citizens in support of recognizing Palestine as a state. 

Across the countries surveyed 49 per cent back the resolution, while 21 per cent say their government should oppose it, and a large proportion (30%) either say that it depends, that their government should abstain, or that they do not know what their government should do. 

Support for recognition is strongest in Egypt, where 90 per cent are in favour and only nine per cent opposed. But there is also majority support in the other three predominantly Muslim countries polled  Turkey (60% support, 19% oppose), Pakistan (52% support, 12% oppose) and Indonesia (51% support,16% oppose). Chinese people are the second most likely overall to favour their government voting for recognition of a Palestinian state, with 56 per cent in support, and just nine per cent opposed. ​


montelatici said:


> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations
> The annual BBC World Service poll finds Germany most popular; only countries less popular than Israel are North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
> 
> Americans have drunk the kool aid it seems.


*(COMMENT)*

If you look at the polls, you will see that while on this discussion board, the Israel-Palestinian Issue is quite important, from a global stand point, it was barely making a scratch.




While problems such as the ongoing crisis in the Eurozone, climate change, and unrest in the Middle East preoccupy governments around the world as 2012 begins, GlobeScan's regular monitoring of global concern over a range of issues highlights that it is more immediate and everyday problems that are often at the forefront of citizens' minds.
In GlobeScan's annual tracking research, corruption once again emerges as one of the global problems considered to be most serious. It is also the problem that citizens are most likely to cite when asked which global problems they have discussed with their friends and family over the past month.
As this map shows, corruption tops the list of most talked about problems in a range of developing and emerging economies, including Peru in South America, Ghana and Egypt in Africa, Turkey in Europe, and India and Indonesia in Asia. Corruption is also often cited as a barrier to getting to grips with many of the other global problems that, as GlobeScan's tracking shows, preoccupy many global citizens.
Taking a strong and public stand against corruption will be an important element in what businesses need to do to demonstrate their relevance to citizens' lives, help build public trust, and maintain their social licence to operate.​
There is something important about POLLS.  They can show any aspect you want.  In this case, the respondence made comment on the aspects that were most important to them at the time.  While they were very harsh with Israel on its belligerent nature, they made virtually no supporting comment pertaining to dismounting the occupation in favor of the Palestinian.



			
				66%  78% of palestinians were pro-israel from 1996 to 2002  40min said:
			
		

> You are expecting the headline to be deceptive or just plain false? Well, its based on poll data specifically around confidence in & criticism of PA leadership on the topics of human rights & democracy. Frankly, in 2014, Palestinians still prefer to be ruled by Israel rather than the PA. The quite illogical disclaimer could maybe have been that some Palestinians would prefer worse human rights & democracy, if only they could have Sharia, but the first quoted extract below disproves that.
> 
> Read the articles linked to, and the quotes below, carefully, and see if they seem authentic & decide for yourself. Note details like: The total sample size of this poll is 1319 from Palestinians 18 years and older, in the West Bank (814) and the Gaza Strip (505) Interviewed face-to-face, in 120 locations.
> 
> *2014:*
> 
> Mohamed Samara, a chemical engineer and football coach who spoke with the Post, is a resident of Tira, an Israeli Arab city to the west of Rout 6. He said he is against Libermans plan. We are happy here; we have all the rights and live well and dont want to be sacrificed, said Samara. We do not want to be in a Palestinian state, under a new political area, he said. We work here, he said, noting that his city has good relation with Jews. Asked if he identifies with Palestinians in the West Bank, Samara responded that he has feelings for them and has some family members that live there. However, at the same time Samara says he identifies with being an Israeli citizen. Asked what percentage of residents of Tira would agree with his views, he responded, 90 percent.​
> *SOURCE:* SOCIETY STACKTRACE





			
				These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 19-22 December 2013. said:
			
		

> *Main Findings:*
> 
> Findings of the last quarter of 2013 indicate that half of the public remains willing to give negotiations a chance but about 70% are pessimistic about the chances for success. On the other hand, most of the public supports the two-state solution and believes that if Abbas does reach a peace agreement with Netanyahu, a majority of the public will vote in favor of that agreement.​
> _*General Analysis:*_
> 
> _*Full Report:*_ PSR - Survey Research Unit: Poll No. 50 - Full analysis
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR)



It is not as hopeless as people think.   It is fairly clear that Israel could, through a benevolent action, and positive attitude, make a major change in the perceptions held by the Palestinian People.  But Israel has to directly address the needs of the people and not those of Fatah or HAMAS.

_More importantly, it seems that these changes have affected attitudes regarding whose way is the best to end occupation and build a Palestinian state.
..............................................................................................Excerpt:  PSR Report​_
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders. As proven before the Palestinians were not mentioned in the treaty and the citizenship laws gave them the title of British Palestinians.
> 
> The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation. The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us are concerned about the rights of Christians, they are mostly Palestinians and Arabs and suffer the same discrimination and aggression at the hands of the Jews. (except for the Russian immigrants that couldn't pass the racial tests and were not qualified to be Jewish)  Not recognizing this fact makes you a ZIOFACSIST GENTILE HATING RACIST . To use your own debating techniques, do you think such childishness helps the debate?
Click to expand...


Unless one is an Arab posting here and hates to see the Jews governing one small part of the Middle East, the others blabbering about the Christians sound like they can't wait to become Dhimmis.  Has anyone seen these potential Dhimmis bringing up the horrific treatment of the Christians in other Middle East countries?  Perhaps the Christians lying dead in the streets because of their religious beliefs doesn't bother them at all because they can't blame the Jews.  It is suggested that the potential Dhimmis should find some articles written by Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian himself with roots in Egypt, and others like him so that they can keep abreast about what is happening to Christians not only in the Middle East but the rest of the Muslim world.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders. As proven before the Palestinians were not mentioned in the treaty and the citizenship laws gave them the title of British Palestinians.
> 
> The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation. The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are concerned about the rights of Christians, they are mostly Palestinians and Arabs and suffer the same discrimination and aggression at the hands of the Jews. (except for the Russian immigrants that couldn't pass the racial tests and were not qualified to be Jewish)  Not recognizing this fact makes you a ZIOFACSIST GENTILE HATING RACIST . To use your own debating techniques, do you think such childishness helps the debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless one is an Arab posting here and hates to see the Jews governing one small part of the Middle East, the others blabbering about the Christians sound like they can't wait to become Dhimmis.  Has anyone seen these potential Dhimmis bringing up the horrific treatment of the Christians in other Middle East countries?  Perhaps the Christians lying dead in the streets because of their religious beliefs doesn't bother them at all because they can't blame the Jews.  It is suggested that the potential Dhimmis should find some articles written by Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian himself with roots in Egypt, and others like him so that they can keep abreast about what is happening to Christians not only in the Middle East but the rest of the Muslim world.
Click to expand...


If I had a choice of living in Israel or an Arab country, I would easily choose the Western thinking Israeli state...Thankfully I need not make that choice...

Israel was re-created right smack in the middle of a sea of Islam...A foolish choice of real-estate for a safe-haven.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._If I had a choice of living in Israel or an Arab country, I would easily choose the Western thinking Israeli state...Thankfully I need not make that choice... _"


Well, that much is good to hear, anyway.



> "..._Israel was re-created right smack in the middle of a sea of Islam...A foolish choice of real-estate for a safe-haven._"


The Holy Land is the Holy Land, even when it's surrounded by Infidels and Barbarians.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._If I had a choice of living in Israel or an Arab country, I would easily choose the Western thinking Israeli state...Thankfully I need not make that choice... _"
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that much is good to hear, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel was re-created right smack in the middle of a sea of Islam...A foolish choice of real-estate for a safe-haven._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Holy Land is the Holy Land, even when it's surrounded by Infidels and Barbarians.
Click to expand...


Choices based on religion are barbaric anachronisms...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._If I had a choice of living in Israel or an Arab country, I would easily choose the Western thinking Israeli state...Thankfully I need not make that choice... _"
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that much is good to hear, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel was re-created right smack in the middle of a sea of Islam...A foolish choice of real-estate for a safe-haven._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Holy Land is the Holy Land, even when it's surrounded by Infidels and Barbarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Choices based on religion are barbaric anachronisms...
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Catholics, pertaining to Rome...

Tell that to the Anglicans, pertaining to Canterbury...

Tell that to the Lutherans, pertaining to Worms...

Tell that to the Greek (and Russian) Orthodox, pertaining to Constantinople (Istanbul)...

Tell that to the Copts, pertaining to Alexandria...

Tell that to the Muslims, pertaining to Mecca and Medinah...

Tell that to the Jews, pertaining to the Holy Land and Jerusalem...

Looks like they're in good company...

Even if they are surrounded by Neanderthals...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that much is good to hear, anyway.
> 
> 
> The Holy Land is the Holy Land, even when it's surrounded by Infidels and Barbarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choices based on religion are barbaric anachronisms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Catholics, pertaining to Rome...
> 
> Tell that to the Anglicans, pertaining to Canterbury...
> 
> Tell that to the Lutherans, pertaining to Worms...
> 
> Tell that to the Greek (and Russian) Orthodox, pertaining to Constantinople (Istanbul)...
> 
> Tell that to the Copts, pertaining to Alexandria...
> 
> Tell that to the Muslims, pertaining to Mecca and Medinah...
> 
> Tell that to the Jews, pertaining to the Holy Land and Jerusalem...
> 
> Looks like they're in good company...
> 
> Even if they are surrounded by Neanderthals...
Click to expand...


*I tell it to everyone..there is One Humanity!*


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._I tell it to everyone..there is One Humanity!_"


How nice...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I tell it to everyone..there is One Humanity!_"
> 
> 
> 
> How nice...
Click to expand...


Kondor the Konquerer , its not your facetious nice, but a necessity of survival...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I tell it to everyone..there is One Humanity!_"
> 
> 
> 
> How nice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kondor the Konquerer , its not your facetious nice, but a necessity of survival...
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure... others see 'survival' and its needs differently than you do.


----------



## Ropey

> I will not Bow!



When the ceiling is lower than your height, refusing to bow is foolish.  

International Law and Virtual States are quite a low ceiling.

/js

Clearly we see what Putin thinks of International law.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders. As proven before the Palestinians were not mentioned in the treaty and the citizenship laws gave them the title of British Palestinians.
> 
> The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation. The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us are concerned about the rights of Christians, they are mostly Palestinians and Arabs and suffer the same discrimination and aggression at the hands of the Jews. (except for the Russian immigrants that couldn't pass the racial tests and were not qualified to be Jewish)  Not recognizing this fact makes you a ZIOFACSIST GENTILE HATING RACIST . To use your own debating techniques, do you think such childishness helps the debate?
Click to expand...






 Shows how much you really know then doesn't it, as I am a gentile Christian. That is a true Christian not a make believe Christian like you, who is an ISLAMONAZI SAVAGE. The Christians face untold discrimination and aggression from the arabs than from the Jews. This is why so many Christians from the holy land are seeking entry into Israel and the numbers of Christians in arab nations is declining through persecution and mass murders.

 For the record the Russian immigrants all have the genetic marker present in only the Jews, as do the Ethiopian Jews. But not one arab has any genetic markers that could tie them to Palestine. This slip up shows you to be a POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as you well know he never said it but then the truth has never been an impediment to PressTV half-wits, eh Princess?
> 
> The quote originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which *claimed* as its source Israeli radio Kol Yisrael.
> 
> Kol Yisrael denies IAP's claim and IAP failed to record it. How convenient.
> 
> No wonder someone like you would buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I showed him that the quote was a hoax in 2415 on here.  Of course though he only sees what he wants to and only believes what he wants to.
> 
> The link for those who want to know more.
> CAMERA: Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAMERA is a Zionist propaganda site, worthless as a source of information.
Click to expand...






And you are an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA PLANT that has been rumbled. Spill your guts out to sherri at the next computer


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are concerned about the rights of Christians, they are mostly Palestinians and Arabs and suffer the same discrimination and aggression at the hands of the Jews. (except for the Russian immigrants that couldn't pass the racial tests and were not qualified to be Jewish)  Not recognizing this fact makes you a ZIOFACSIST GENTILE HATING RACIST . To use your own debating techniques, do you think such childishness helps the debate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless one is an Arab posting here and hates to see the Jews governing one small part of the Middle East, the others blabbering about the Christians sound like they can't wait to become Dhimmis.  Has anyone seen these potential Dhimmis bringing up the horrific treatment of the Christians in other Middle East countries?  Perhaps the Christians lying dead in the streets because of their religious beliefs doesn't bother them at all because they can't blame the Jews.  It is suggested that the potential Dhimmis should find some articles written by Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian himself with roots in Egypt, and others like him so that they can keep abreast about what is happening to Christians not only in the Middle East but the rest of the Muslim world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had a choice of living in Israel or an Arab country, I would easily choose the Western thinking Israeli state...Thankfully I need not make that choice...
> 
> Israel was re-created right smack in the middle of a sea of Islam...A foolish choice of real-estate for a safe-haven.
Click to expand...






Yet after 66 Years of conflict and violence Israel is still there and flourishing, the arabs are on the run and a hiding to nothing.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._If I had a choice of living in Israel or an Arab country, I would easily choose the Western thinking Israeli state...Thankfully I need not make that choice... _"
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that much is good to hear, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Israel was re-created right smack in the middle of a sea of Islam...A foolish choice of real-estate for a safe-haven._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Holy Land is the Holy Land, even when it's surrounded by Infidels and Barbarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Choices based on religion are barbaric anachronisms...
Click to expand...






 Yet you fawn all over the muslims when they use their religious choices. They obey the commands from their god to "KILL THE JEWS" and to inhabit the lands of the world in allahs name.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choices based on religion are barbaric anachronisms...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Catholics, pertaining to Rome...
> 
> Tell that to the Anglicans, pertaining to Canterbury...
> 
> Tell that to the Lutherans, pertaining to Worms...
> 
> Tell that to the Greek (and Russian) Orthodox, pertaining to Constantinople (Istanbul)...
> 
> Tell that to the Copts, pertaining to Alexandria...
> 
> Tell that to the Muslims, pertaining to Mecca and Medinah...
> 
> Tell that to the Jews, pertaining to the Holy Land and Jerusalem...
> 
> Looks like they're in good company...
> 
> Even if they are surrounded by Neanderthals...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I tell it to everyone..there is One Humanity!*
Click to expand...






Its a pity your arab friends don't show any humanity then isn't it


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I tell it to everyone..there is One Humanity!_"
> 
> 
> 
> How nice...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kondor the Konquerer , its not your facetious nice, but a necessity of survival...
Click to expand...





 And Israel is surviving quite nicely thank you, despite your LIES, FABRICATIONS and twisted logic.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WhT kind of document are you looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders.
Click to expand...

Neither did any of the other successor states that were carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire so I don't see your point.



> As proven before the Palestinians were not mentioned in the treaty and the citizenship laws gave them the title of British Palestinians.


None of the nationalities of the successor states were mentioned, however, basic principles were laid down that were universally applicable.

Palestinians were citizens of Palestine. They were never British citizens.



> The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation.


The mandate never offered a separate anything. Immigrants were to obtain Palestinians citizenship and join the other Palestinians in a shared sovereignty.



> The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

toastman said:


> Why are so many pro Palestinians so delusional?? Why do they ignore the truth? Why do they constantly distort facts and re write history?
> I seriously dont get it



I do.  They are antisemites pure and simple.


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are so many pro Palestinians so delusional?? Why do they ignore the truth? Why do they constantly distort facts and re write history?
> I seriously dont get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  They are antisemites pure and simple.
Click to expand...


The facts are that Europeans, who happened to be Jewish, removed indigenous people from their land and took the land from them.  Supporters of this original criminal act (that started this conflict) are delusional if they think that people that were dispossessed will just go away quietly.  There is nothing anti-Jewish about supporting the rights of indigenous people.  It is just the just and right (and Christian) position.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several facts about Palestine.
> 
> The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.
> 
> The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.
> 
> Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.
> 
> This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.
> 
> These natives of Palestine had certain rights:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither did any of the other successor states that were carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire so I don't see your point.
> 
> 
> None of the nationalities of the successor states were mentioned, however, basic principles were laid down that were universally applicable.
> 
> Palestinians were citizens of Palestine. They were never British citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews of Palestine took up the offer in the mandate of Palestine to create a nation of their own. This gave then self determination and national sovereignty over the land destined for the Israeli nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate never offered a separate anything. Immigrants were to obtain Palestinians citizenship and join the other Palestinians in a shared sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and trans Jordan all signed treaties when they were created under the mandate

 The other ottoman entities were named in the treaties, only Palestine was omitted deliberately by the parties involved.

 Then why were they issued with British or French passports under the mandate

 Not according to the league of nations and the mandate of Palestine, the whole idea from the start was to allocate land for each separate entity in the land of Palestine. Because the arab muslims had 3 distinct cults they were given 3 nations Syria, Iraq and Trans Jordan. The Christians were given Lebanon and the Jews were to receive the remainder of Palestine. The treaties stated that the ruling cabal would be the predominant religious entity, but that the other entities could migrate if they wanted or stay as full citizens without fear of harm. Since then the arab muslims have ethnically cleansed their nations of most Christians, muslims of a different sect and all Jews. You really should read the real facts and not the twisted biased version by some ISLAMONAZI Palestinian professor.


----------



## pbel

Ropey said:


> I will not Bow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the ceiling is lower than your height, refusing to bow is foolish.
> 
> International Law and Virtual States are quite a low ceiling.
> 
> /js
> 
> Clearly we see what Putin thinks of International law.
Click to expand...


We both agree, let them shoot it up and keep America totally out of it so that Terrorism leaves our borders for supporting a pariah state of Israel against her voluntary wars with Islam....

America via AIPAC is a Lackey for Israel, any doubt?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters your source of information is wrong and its author slipped in the term Palestine to make it look legitimate. There are no treaties signed by a Palestinian giving it sovereign status and international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did any of the other successor states that were carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire so I don't see your point.
> 
> 
> None of the nationalities of the successor states were mentioned, however, basic principles were laid down that were universally applicable.
> 
> Palestinians were citizens of Palestine. They were never British citizens.
> 
> 
> The mandate never offered a separate anything. Immigrants were to obtain Palestinians citizenship and join the other Palestinians in a shared sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab Palestinians declined the offer and instigated ALL OUT WAR on Israel. A war they lost and caused an amendment to the Geneva conventions that outlaws such declarations of war for ever.
> 
> It seems that you are not concerned with the rights of the Jews and Christians in Palestine to their rights of self determination without outside interference. As under an arab nation they would have no self determination at all. Making you an ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING ANTI SEMITIC POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and trans Jordan all signed treaties when they were created under the mandate
> 
> The other ottoman entities were named in the treaties, only Palestine was omitted deliberately by the parties involved.
> 
> Then why were they issued with British or French passports under the mandate
> 
> Not according to the league of nations and the mandate of Palestine, the whole idea from the start was to allocate land for each separate entity in the land of Palestine. Because the arab muslims had 3 distinct cults they were given 3 nations Syria, Iraq and Trans Jordan. The Christians were given Lebanon and the Jews were to receive the remainder of Palestine. The treaties stated that the ruling cabal would be the predominant religious entity, but that the other entities could migrate if they wanted or stay as full citizens without fear of harm. Since then the arab muslims have ethnically cleansed their nations of most Christians, muslims of a different sect and all Jews. You really should read the real facts and not the twisted biased version by some ISLAMONAZI Palestinian professor.
Click to expand...


Do you have quotes and links for all of that?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not Bow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the ceiling is lower than your height, refusing to bow is foolish.
> 
> International Law and Virtual States are quite a low ceiling.
> 
> /js
> 
> Clearly we see what Putin thinks of International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both agree, let them shoot it up and keep America totally out of it so that Terrorism leaves our borders for supporting a pariah state of Israel against her voluntary wars with Islam....
> 
> America via AIPAC is a Lackey for Israel, any doubt?
Click to expand...





 Yes let the Israeli's and Palestinians shoot it out with no interference from anyone else, a fight to the death using conventional weapons. If you want it to be played out using all of islam then all of Christendom would need to be involved too, levelling the playing field. I note you want to use greater numbers to fight Israel because that is the Islamic way, being consummate cowards. Which is why they lose every war they start with non Islamic nations.

 More ISLAMONAZI bullshit from the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._so that Terrorism leaves our borders for supporting a pariah state of Israel against her voluntary wars with Islam_..."


The United States of America does not tolerate outsiders dictating to her, whom she may be friends with, and whom she may not, and whom she may ally with, and whom she may not.

The moment that we allow that, is the moment that the terrorists have won.

Americans spit on terrorists who try to force their will upon us and kill our innocents in the process of trying to weaken and shatter American willpower, in connection with America's right to choose its own friends and allies as it sees fit.

That contemptuous act of spitting goes double for the fifth columnists and appeasers and agents provocateur and weaklings and frightened sheep amongst us who argue - directly or indirectly - consciously or inadvertently - the cause of the terrorists and those on whose behalf such acts of terror are oftentimes committed.

That contemptuous act of spitting goes triple for those who try to subvert the American Will with talk of appeasing Militant Muslims and abrogating support for old friends so that Militant Muslims will stop conducting terror attacks against us.

The American response is complete and utter contempt for such Militant Muslims and their pen pals here in this country and abroad.

"_Millions for Defense, but not one cent for Tribute._"

We don't scare easily, Militant Muslim Mouthpieces. Especially not by the likes of you, nor those whom you represent.

We would rather lose some of our precious people, and kill one hundred times as many of yours in response, than to knuckle-under to your threats and demands.

Don't want us in your face? Then stay out of ours. And do not presume to dictate our friends to us. Or ignore that admonition, to your _very_ great peril.



> "..._America via AIPAC is a Lackey for Israel, any doubt?_"


Yes.

There is a great deal of doubt on that score.

But there is little doubt that holding a bias towards Israel is a _far_ better state of affairs than playing the foil and loudspeaker for Militant Islam.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did any of the other successor states that were carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire so I don't see your point.
> 
> 
> None of the nationalities of the successor states were mentioned, however, basic principles were laid down that were universally applicable.
> 
> Palestinians were citizens of Palestine. They were never British citizens.
> 
> 
> The mandate never offered a separate anything. Immigrants were to obtain Palestinians citizenship and join the other Palestinians in a shared sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and trans Jordan all signed treaties when they were created under the mandate
> 
> The other ottoman entities were named in the treaties, only Palestine was omitted deliberately by the parties involved.
> 
> Then why were they issued with British or French passports under the mandate
> 
> Not according to the league of nations and the mandate of Palestine, the whole idea from the start was to allocate land for each separate entity in the land of Palestine. Because the arab muslims had 3 distinct cults they were given 3 nations Syria, Iraq and Trans Jordan. The Christians were given Lebanon and the Jews were to receive the remainder of Palestine. The treaties stated that the ruling cabal would be the predominant religious entity, but that the other entities could migrate if they wanted or stay as full citizens without fear of harm. Since then the arab muslims have ethnically cleansed their nations of most Christians, muslims of a different sect and all Jews. You really should read the real facts and not the twisted biased version by some ISLAMONAZI Palestinian professor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes and links for all of that?
Click to expand...


Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and trans Jordan all signed treaties when they were created under the mandate
> 
> The other ottoman entities were named in the treaties, only Palestine was omitted deliberately by the parties involved.
> 
> Then why were they issued with British or French passports under the mandate
> 
> Not according to the league of nations and the mandate of Palestine, the whole idea from the start was to allocate land for each separate entity in the land of Palestine. Because the arab muslims had 3 distinct cults they were given 3 nations Syria, Iraq and Trans Jordan. The Christians were given Lebanon and the Jews were to receive the remainder of Palestine. The treaties stated that the ruling cabal would be the predominant religious entity, but that the other entities could migrate if they wanted or stay as full citizens without fear of harm. Since then the arab muslims have ethnically cleansed their nations of most Christians, muslims of a different sect and all Jews. You really should read the real facts and not the twisted biased version by some ISLAMONAZI Palestinian professor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes and links for all of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous
Click to expand...


I provide quotes and links. Why don't you?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes and links for all of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provide quotes and links. Why don't you?
Click to expand...


No you dont. Even when you do , you provide a link for something that doesnt even back up your claim and then you try and get away with it.

Nice try


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and trans Jordan all signed treaties when they were created under the mandate
> 
> The other ottoman entities were named in the treaties, only Palestine was omitted deliberately by the parties involved.
> 
> Then why were they issued with British or French passports under the mandate
> 
> Not according to the league of nations and the mandate of Palestine, the whole idea from the start was to allocate land for each separate entity in the land of Palestine. Because the arab muslims had 3 distinct cults they were given 3 nations Syria, Iraq and Trans Jordan. The Christians were given Lebanon and the Jews were to receive the remainder of Palestine. The treaties stated that the ruling cabal would be the predominant religious entity, but that the other entities could migrate if they wanted or stay as full citizens without fear of harm. Since then the arab muslims have ethnically cleansed their nations of most Christians, muslims of a different sect and all Jews. You really should read the real facts and not the twisted biased version by some ISLAMONAZI Palestinian professor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes and links for all of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous
Click to expand...


He wants Rocco's attention.


----------



## Hossfly

Sweet_Caroline said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes and links for all of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wants Rocco's attention.
Click to expand...

FLASH!!!

Just now was watching Netanyahu on CSPAN addressing the AIPAC Conference. One thingis for sure: Bibi ain't bowing.

              FLASH!!!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes and links for all of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provide quotes and links. Why don't you?
Click to expand...






 The links have been provided and you ignore them as "irrelevant" because they destroy your twisted POV.

 But here goes again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

 The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] *The mandate document formalised the division of Palestine*,* to include a national home for the Jewish people under direct British rule*, *and Transjordan*, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family


 Clear enough for you the legal requirements of the mandate were to provide two states in Palestine Israel and Jordan, not 22 tiny arab muslim states with each ruled by a warlord


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore. You out of all people asking for links and quotes is just ridiculous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provide quotes and links. Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The links have been provided and you ignore them as "irrelevant" because they destroy your twisted POV.
> 
> But here goes again
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] *The mandate document formalised the division of Palestine*,* to include a national home for the Jewish people under direct British rule*, *and Transjordan*, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family
> 
> 
> Clear enough for you the legal requirements of the mandate were to provide two states in Palestine Israel and Jordan, not 22 tiny arab muslim states with each ruled by a warlord
Click to expand...


Where in the Mandate did it call for an exclusive Jewish state?


----------



## Ropey

pbel said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not Bow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the ceiling is lower than your height, refusing to bow is foolish.
> 
> International Law and Virtual States are quite a low ceiling.
> 
> /js
> 
> Clearly we see what Putin thinks of International law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both agree, let them shoot it up and keep America totally out of it so that Terrorism leaves our borders for supporting a pariah state of Israel against her voluntary wars with Islam....
> 
> America via AIPAC is a Lackey for Israel, any doubt?
Click to expand...


America is in it because of the US Middle Eastern Oil Hegemony and not Israel.

Get your facts straight.

The US has been trying to get Iran working with them since before the state of Israel.  The Sha was instilled long before 1948.

As soon as they got a stranglehold on Iran, they let go of Israel as an inducement to the  Iranians.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are so many pro Palestinians so delusional?? Why do they ignore the truth? Why do they constantly distort facts and re write history?
> I seriously dont get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  They are antisemites pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that Europeans, who happened to be Jewish, removed indigenous people from their land and took the land from them.  Supporters of this original criminal act (that started this conflict) are delusional if they think that people that were dispossessed will just go away quietly.  There is nothing anti-Jewish about supporting the rights of indigenous people.  It is just the just and right (and Christian) position.
Click to expand...



Here we go again with the "indigenous people."  Strange how travelers years and years ago through the area had written that they saw very few Arabs and when they came to the cities they saw Jews.  I guess Winston Churchill was lying when he said the Arabs were swarming into the area when the Jews had jobs for them.  Perhaps montelatici thinks the British officials in the area was fibbing when they reported back as to what was happening.  We see today how the poor people are swarming into Europe and the Western Hemisphere (as well as those who come across our Southern border) for the opportunities they don't have in their own home countries, and it was just the same reason the impoverished Arabs came to Israel in enormous numbers.  The Just and Right Christian position would be to be complain about the persecution of the Christians in the Muslim world.  However, montelatici is very mum about this.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

True.  Jewish agencies and charities worldwide funded the purchase of land and the emigration to the land known as Palestine.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are so many pro Palestinians so delusional?? Why do they ignore the truth? Why do they constantly distort facts and re write history?
> I seriously dont get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  They are antisemites pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are that Europeans, who happened to be Jewish, removed indigenous people from their land and took the land from them.  Supporters of this original criminal act (that started this conflict) are delusional if they think that people that were dispossessed will just go away quietly.  There is nothing anti-Jewish about supporting the rights of indigenous people.  It is just the just and right (and Christian) position.
Click to expand...


arabs told most of them to move and kept them in minimal conditions


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provide quotes and links. Why don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The links have been provided and you ignore them as "irrelevant" because they destroy your twisted POV.
> 
> But here goes again
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
> 
> The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] *The mandate document formalised the division of Palestine*,* to include a national home for the Jewish people under direct British rule*, *and Transjordan*, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family
> 
> 
> Clear enough for you the legal requirements of the mandate were to provide two states in Palestine Israel and Jordan, not 22 tiny arab muslim states with each ruled by a warlord
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Mandate did it call for an exclusive Jewish state?
Click to expand...





 It doesn't and there is not an exclusive Jewish state, at least 20% are non Jewish and have the same rights as the Jews. Now were does it say in the mandate that the Jews were to be ruled over by the Palestinian muslims ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

It doesn't.  A Jewish National Home can be accomplished in any number of ways.  It doesn't exclude a "Jewish State." 



P F Tinmore said:


> Where in the Mandate did it call for an exclusive Jewish state?


*(COMMENT)*

The recommendation for a "Jewish State" was made by the UN in Resolution 181(II); recognized by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

Ropey said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the ceiling is lower than your height, refusing to bow is foolish.
> 
> International Law and Virtual States are quite a low ceiling.
> 
> /js
> 
> Clearly we see what Putin thinks of International law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both agree, let them shoot it up and keep America totally out of it so that Terrorism leaves our borders for supporting a pariah state of Israel against her voluntary wars with Islam....
> 
> America via AIPAC is a Lackey for Israel, any doubt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is in it because of the US Middle Eastern Oil Hegemony and not Israel.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> The US has been trying to get Iran working with them since before the state of Israel.  The Sha was instilled long before 1948.
> 
> As soon as they got a stranglehold on Iran, they let go of Israel as an inducement to the  Iranians.
Click to expand...


America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We both agree, let them shoot it up and keep America totally out of it so that Terrorism leaves our borders for supporting a pariah state of Israel against her voluntary wars with Islam....
> 
> America via AIPAC is a Lackey for Israel, any doubt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is in it because of the US Middle Eastern Oil Hegemony and not Israel.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> The US has been trying to get Iran working with them since before the state of Israel.  The Sha was instilled long before 1948.
> 
> As soon as they got a stranglehold on Iran, they let go of Israel as an inducement to the  Iranians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
Click to expand...


The warmongers are the ones you support


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is in it because of the US Middle Eastern Oil Hegemony and not Israel.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> The US has been trying to get Iran working with them since before the state of Israel.  The Sha was instilled long before 1948.
> 
> As soon as they got a stranglehold on Iran, they let go of Israel as an inducement to the  Iranians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The warmongers are the ones you support
Click to expand...


I support a just peace to the 67 green line with a shared Jerusalem...If the US doesn't get that, she should leave the ME, we have no need to be there. It brings us terrorism because we arm Israel to the hilt.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

*Warmonger* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
Warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.



pbel said:


> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...


*(COMMENT)*

I think you've made a mistake.


It is the Arab-Palestinian that threatened "genocide."
It is the Arab-Palestinian that declared "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem."
It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" - "with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate."
It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares, "The Palestinian resistance may find at a certain stage that the path of martyrdom operations is more effective, and it must not rule out the use of any method that can inflict pain on the enemy and deter it. Friendly nations and countries must support the action of the resistance and must condemn the occupation.

If there is a "Warmonger" it is likely to be the Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> *Warmonger* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
> Warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you've made a mistake.
> 
> 
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that threatened "genocide."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declared "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" - "with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares, "The Palestinian resistance may find at a certain stage that the path of martyrdom operations is more effective, and it must not rule out the use of any method that can inflict pain on the enemy and deter it. Friendly nations and countries must support the action of the resistance and must condemn the occupation.
> 
> If there is a "Warmonger" it is likely to be the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.

Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.

Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes, 

Capisce?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The warmongers are the ones you support
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support a just peace to the 67 green line with a shared Jerusalem...If the US doesn't get that, she should leave the ME, we have no need to be there. It brings us terrorism because we arm Israel to the hilt.
Click to expand...


Again , you are thinking that the US is going to succumb to the pressure of terrorists by ceasing to be Israel Ally. It doesnt work like that. 
If the US wants to be in the ME, then they are going to remain there, and if you think that supporting Israel is the only reason, you are sorely mistaken


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> *Warmonger* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
> Warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you've made a mistake.
> 
> 
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that threatened "genocide."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declared "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" - "with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares, "The Palestinian resistance may find at a certain stage that the path of martyrdom operations is more effective, and it must not rule out the use of any method that can inflict pain on the enemy and deter it. Friendly nations and countries must support the action of the resistance and must condemn the occupation.
> 
> If there is a "Warmonger" it is likely to be the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
Click to expand...


I fail to see how what the PAlestinians are doing falls under the category of defending.
And once again, the European Jews were not invaders , as they were invited to the region by the British who also fascilitated their immigration. You know, the same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make these decisions.

Youve been reading too many of Tinmores posts


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> *Warmonger* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
> Warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you've made a mistake.
> 
> 
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that threatened "genocide."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declared "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" - "with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares, "The Palestinian resistance may find at a certain stage that the path of martyrdom operations is more effective, and it must not rule out the use of any method that can inflict pain on the enemy and deter it. Friendly nations and countries must support the action of the resistance and must condemn the occupation.
> 
> If there is a "Warmonger" it is likely to be the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fail to see how what the PAlestinians are doing falls under the category of defending.
> And once again, the European Jews were not invaders , as they were invited to the region by the British who also fascilitated their immigration. You know, the same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make these decisions.
> 
> Youve been reading too many of Tinmores posts
Click to expand...


Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how what the PAlestinians are doing falls under the category of defending.
> And once again, the European Jews were not invaders , as they were invited to the region by the British who also fascilitated their immigration. You know, the same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make these decisions.
> 
> Youve been reading too many of Tinmores posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
Click to expand...


You didnt even address what I said. I was explaining to you how and why the European Jews were not invaders like you reffered to them as, and yoh completely deflected.


----------



## toastman

BTW just a reminder that I am still posting on my phone which explains all my typos. 
For those of you with an iPhone, you kniw how hard it can be to type with touchscreen


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how what the PAlestinians are doing falls under the category of defending.
> And once again, the European Jews were not invaders , as they were invited to the region by the British who also fascilitated their immigration. You know, the same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make these decisions.
> 
> Youve been reading too many of Tinmores posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didnt even address what I said. I was explaining to you how and why the European Jews were not invaders like you reffered to them as, and yoh completely deflected.
Click to expand...


shaw wee...If not invaders what were they? They certainly terrorized and disposed people.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> BTW just a reminder that I am still posting on my phone which explains all my typos.
> For those of you with an iPhone, you kniw how hard it can be to type with touchscreen



You're masterful...but geez wait til you get home, you sound addicted.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt even address what I said. I was explaining to you how and why the European Jews were not invaders like you reffered to them as, and yoh completely deflected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shaw wee...If not invaders what were they? They certainly terrorized and disposed people.
Click to expand...


Thats the kind of shit that happens during wars. People on both sides were terrorized.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW just a reminder that I am still posting on my phone which explains all my typos.
> For those of you with an iPhone, you kniw how hard it can be to type with touchscreen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're masterful...but geez wait til you get home, you sound addicted.
Click to expand...


Ive been out of town for a while now, so my phone IS my computer.

Me, addicted?? Hardly


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

You speak with conviction, that is for sure.



pbel said:


> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...


*(COMMENT)*

Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.

Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.

It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 193639 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.

Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.

Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> You speak with conviction, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.
> 
> Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.
> 
> It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 193639 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.
> 
> Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.
> 
> Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Facts have no credibility with the Peebels of this world.


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> You speak with conviction, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.
> 
> Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.
> 
> It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 193639 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.
> 
> Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.
> 
> Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts have no credibility with the Peebels of this world.
Click to expand...


Or Tinmore


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> You speak with conviction, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.
> 
> Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.
> 
> It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 1936&#8211;39 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.
> 
> Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.
> 
> Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You keep leaving out the part that those were in response to the Zionist invasion of 1917.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> You speak with conviction, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.
> 
> Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.
> 
> It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 193639 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.
> 
> Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.
> 
> Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep leaving out the part that those were in response to the Zionist invasion of 1917.
Click to expand...


This is the problem with you Tinmore. You keep parotting the same lies over and over even though it has been explained to you.

There was no invasion. The European Jews were invited by the British to the region. In fact, the British also fascilitated their immigration. Yes, the same British who ruled the land.

The problem with you is that you need to keep lying and fabricating certain events like this in order to further your agenda because without those lies, you have nothing and you know it.

Also, how is threats of genocide and the other things Rocco said a response to the British helping to immigrate European Jews?? 
Everytime someone brings up something violent Palestinians do, you try to justify it by saying"oh well they did it because the Jews did this or the Israelis did that"


----------



## toastman

Only pro Palestinians lime Tinmore will justify the incitement if mass murder of Jews and looting of their homes because they objected to immigration of Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> You speak with conviction, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.
> 
> Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.
> 
> It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 193639 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.
> 
> Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.
> 
> Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep leaving out the part that those were in response to the Zionist invasion of 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the problem with you Tinmore. You keep parotting the same lies over and over even though it has been explained to you.
> 
> There was no invasion. *The European Jews were invited by the British to the region.* In fact, the British also fascilitated their immigration. Yes, the same British who ruled the land.
> 
> The problem with you is that you need to keep lying and fabricating certain events like this in order to further your agenda because without those lies, you have nothing and you know it.
> 
> Also, how is threats of genocide and the other things Rocco said a response to the British helping to immigrate European Jews??
> Everytime someone brings up something violent Palestinians do, you try to justify it by saying"oh well they did it because the Jews did this or the Israelis did that"
Click to expand...


The Zionists recruited the British to help them invade and take over the country.

Well then, that makes it OK.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The warmongers are the ones you support
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support a just peace to the 67 green line with a shared Jerusalem...If the US doesn't get that, she should leave the ME, we have no need to be there. It brings us terrorism because we arm Israel to the hilt.
Click to expand...





 A just peace can not depend on non existent 67 borders, as they are far from just. A just peace has to negotiate borders that are defensible and mutually agreed. That is the terms of all the UN resolutions and the Oslo accords. Then Palestinians agreed to and signed the principles of the Oslo accords so why are they refusing to act accordingly.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> *Warmonger* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
> Warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is nearly a net exporter of oil...Only the armaments by the warmongers make money...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you've made a mistake.
> 
> 
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that threatened "genocide."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declared "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" - "with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares, "The Palestinian resistance may find at a certain stage that the path of martyrdom operations is more effective, and it must not rule out the use of any method that can inflict pain on the enemy and deter it. Friendly nations and countries must support the action of the resistance and must condemn the occupation.
> 
> If there is a "Warmonger" it is likely to be the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
Click to expand...






 And once again you deny the Jews their right to self determination and the land promised to them under the mandate of Palestine. The muslims got their land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and should be thankful for their benefactors. The Jews were promised what is now Israel, gaza and the west bank until the arab muslims complained and demanded all the land of Palestine. Then UN should have stepped up to the mark there and then and said NO MORE ARAB LAND and enforced it with military action.

 There is the problem in the ME arab muslim greed, not Zionism and not European invaders


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how what the PAlestinians are doing falls under the category of defending.
> And once again, the European Jews were not invaders , as they were invited to the region by the British who also fascilitated their immigration. You know, the same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make these decisions.
> 
> Youve been reading too many of Tinmores posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
Click to expand...






Yet you support the Palestinians doing just that to the Jews and Christians in the name of arab colonialism. A full 95% of Palestinians are not indigenous to the area, and came from the surrounding area in search of jobs. The European's all had the genetic marker that places them in Palestine originally, so they have a right to be there. Try looking at the real facts and not the ISLAMONAZI LIES for your inspiration.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt even address what I said. I was explaining to you how and why the European Jews were not invaders like you reffered to them as, and yoh completely deflected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shaw wee...If not invaders what were they? They certainly terrorized and disposed people.
Click to expand...





They were migrants just as the arab muslims were who flooded the region. The main difference was the European Jews had the genetic markers tying then to Palestine, the arab don't. The arab muslims terrorised and dispossessed people right up until 1967 when Israel gained control of their own destiny, putting the arab muslims in a position of underdog .


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> You speak with conviction, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your comment that "The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture," is true enough.  But that is not what happened.
> 
> Again, we are going back into history beyond the current dispute revolving around the 1967 War and the outcomes.
> 
> It was Haj Amin al-Husseini (later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) who incited the masses to murder Jews, burning and looting Jewish homes; the 1920 (Nebi Musa) Riots in Jerusalem; after attacks and murders in Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee.  He was instrumental in promoting the 193639 Arab revolt in Palestine, and after his flight from Palestine, was a known promoter and recruiter of Muslims for the Waffen-SS.
> 
> Shortly after the 1929 (Western Wall Uprising) in which the Arabs attacked Jews over  the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the rabble-rouser and militant Syrian preacher, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, established the Palestinian Black Hand (PalBH).  The PalBH selectively targeted Jewish families for execution and operated for nearly a decade.  Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed in a 1935 Police shoot-out, in a guerilla action against British forces.  His death was a major trigger that started the Great Revolt of 1936-39.
> 
> Neither side has clean hands; least of all, the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep leaving out the part that those were in response to the Zionist invasion of 1917.
Click to expand...






 What Zionist invasion, why isn't it in the history books that Zionisia Invaded the M.E.  Or do you mean the British invasion of Palestine that took place in 1917 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep leaving out the part that those were in response to the Zionist invasion of 1917.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem with you Tinmore. You keep parotting the same lies over and over even though it has been explained to you.
> 
> There was no invasion. *The European Jews were invited by the British to the region.* In fact, the British also fascilitated their immigration. Yes, the same British who ruled the land.
> 
> The problem with you is that you need to keep lying and fabricating certain events like this in order to further your agenda because without those lies, you have nothing and you know it.
> 
> Also, how is threats of genocide and the other things Rocco said a response to the British helping to immigrate European Jews??
> Everytime someone brings up something violent Palestinians do, you try to justify it by saying"oh well they did it because the Jews did this or the Israelis did that"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists recruited the British to help them invade and take over the country.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
Click to expand...






 Link from a reputable source that says the Zionists recruited the British to invade Palestine while Britain was involved in war in Europe against the Zionists ?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how what the PAlestinians are doing falls under the category of defending.
> And once again, the European Jews were not invaders , as they were invited to the region by the British who also fascilitated their immigration. You know, the same British who ruled the land and had the authority to make these decisions.
> 
> Youve been reading too many of Tinmores posts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support the Palestinians doing just that to the Jews and Christians in the name of arab colonialism. A full 95% of Palestinians are not indigenous to the area, and came from the surrounding area in search of jobs. The European's all had the genetic marker that places them in Palestine originally, so they have a right to be there. Try looking at the real facts and not the ISLAMONAZI LIES for your inspiration.
Click to expand...

*
Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.*


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The British, UN or anyone have no right to disposes people of their homes or culture, besides the Brits didn't terrorize civilians to steal their homes, that was Israelis...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support the Palestinians doing just that to the Jews and Christians in the name of arab colonialism. A full 95% of Palestinians are not indigenous to the area, and came from the surrounding area in search of jobs. The European's all had the genetic marker that places them in Palestine originally, so they have a right to be there. Try looking at the real facts and not the ISLAMONAZI LIES for your inspiration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.*
Click to expand...





 Will these do you

Jerusalem Summit

 MOST PALESTINIAN REFUGEES WERE ARAB MIGRANTS

ArrowThe origin of most Palestinian refugees was from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Algeria and Libya, migrating during 1830-1947. The Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramleh grew 17, 12 and 5 times during 1880-1947. 

Arrow"30,000-36,000 SYRIANS migrated to Palestine in recent months" (Syrian daily, La Syrie, Aug. 12, 1934).

ArrowJAFFA ABSORBED ARABS FROM 15 COUNTRIES, who populated some "Egyptian Neighborhoods": Abu Kabir, Salameh, Sumeil, Sheikh Muneis, Feja, etc. Egyptian occupation (1831-1840) produced thousands of Egyptian migrants in Jaffa, Petach Tiqva, Hadera, Kalansawa, Acre, Beit She'an, Nablus, etc.

ArrowTHOUSANDS OF ARAB MIGRANT LABORERS were imported by the Ottoman Empire and Britain for infrastructure projects, and as a result of the expansion of Jewish businesses, while severe British measures limited Jewish Aliya.


The Truth About Palestinian Immigration « Commentary Magazine

 Yoram Ettinger supported Newt Gingrichs statement that Palestinians are an invented people by offering statistics to show that far from having lived in the Holy Land for millennia, most Palestinians descend from immigrants who came from throughout the Muslim world between 1845 and 1947. 

Arab- Muslim Waves of Immigration to Palestine (the Land of Israel )/ DR.Rivka Shpak Lissak | Rivka Shpak Lissak

 Palestinians are not the Indigenous people of the Holy Land 

The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.
 The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.
 Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516  1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918  1948).


The Ettinger Report - Who are the Palestinians?

 Contrary to political correctness, Palestinian Arabs have not been in the area west of the Jordan River from time immemorial; no Palestinian state ever existed, no Palestinian People was ever robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian claim of return. 



Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the 1845-1947 Muslim migrants from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.


Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo

 How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.


----------



## Kondor3

It is true that Old Palestine was a very sparsely populated region, as recently as the lifetime of American author Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), who, among others, remarked on both the small population and the wasteland that was Old Palestine...

_"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."  (The Innocents Abroad, 1867, p. 361-362)_

...while traversing the countryside from one 'sacred place' to another within the Holy Land.

Even accounting for the limitations on arable land, regional wars and in-fighting and the decay and rot and stagnation associated with being a province of the latter-day Ottoman Imperium, Twain's (Clemens') remarks, and those of other visitors to Old Palestine, prior to the beginning of large-scale Jewish immigration to the region, describe an economically and culturally and politically backwards place, even by the standards of the times.

Genetically speaking, the Jews of modern-day Israel are mutts; hybrids; the descendants of a broad admixture of ancient Hebrew and Steppe Peoples and Eastern and Central European bloodlines; with faint traces of other lineages; and the influx of Russian and European Jews into the mix in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries brought workable variations on modern Socialism and Collective or Communal Living and Political Activism to bear upon their problems.

Genetically speaking, the Arabs of modern-day Rump Palestine are mutts; hybrids; descendants of recent waves of immigration, and earlier Bedouin and Arab conquerors, and Hebrews who surrendered to the Ummah, and Crusaders, and Turks and Greeks and Byzantines and Romans and Egyptians and Samaritans and Philistines and all of that old lot; under the heel of the Ottoman Imperium for centuries; backwards and degenerate; ill-educated and ill-prepared to deal with the rigors of autonomous and independent political life; a legacy of centuries of submission to and subjugation by the Ottoman Imperium; Muslims inflicting this state of affairs upon fellow Muslims.

In the final analysis, in 1948, the Jews had their shit together; the Muslim-Arabs did not; and all the rationalizing and all the excuse-making in the world is not going to change what was, nor what is. You snooze, you lose. There are no Do-Overs.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> *Warmonger* - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
> Warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you've made a mistake.
> 
> 
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that threatened "genocide."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declared "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" - "with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate."
> It is the Arab-Palestinian that declares, "The Palestinian resistance may find at a certain stage that the path of martyrdom operations is more effective, and it must not rule out the use of any method that can inflict pain on the enemy and deter it. Friendly nations and countries must support the action of the resistance and must condemn the occupation.
> 
> If there is a "Warmonger" it is likely to be the Arab-Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you deny the Jews their right to self determination and the land promised to them under the mandate of Palestine. The muslims got their land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and should be thankful for their benefactors. The Jews were promised what is now Israel, gaza and the west bank until the arab muslims complained and demanded all the land of Palestine. Then UN should have stepped up to the mark there and then and said NO MORE ARAB LAND and enforced it with military action.
> 
> There is the problem in the ME arab muslim greed, not Zionism and not European invaders
Click to expand...


Good post but you only mentioned 3 out of 22 Arab states and/or 57 Muslim states.  Talk about greed!


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you support the Palestinians doing just that to the Jews and Christians in the name of arab colonialism. A full 95% of Palestinians are not indigenous to the area, and came from the surrounding area in search of jobs. The European's all had the genetic marker that places them in Palestine originally, so they have a right to be there. Try looking at the real facts and not the ISLAMONAZI LIES for your inspiration.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will these do you
> 
> Jerusalem Summit
> 
> MOST PALESTINIAN REFUGEES WERE ARAB MIGRANTS
> 
> ArrowThe origin of most Palestinian refugees was from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Algeria and Libya, migrating during 1830-1947. The Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramleh grew 17, 12 and 5 times during 1880-1947.
> 
> Arrow"30,000-36,000 SYRIANS migrated to Palestine in recent months" (Syrian daily, La Syrie, Aug. 12, 1934).
> 
> ArrowJAFFA ABSORBED ARABS FROM 15 COUNTRIES, who populated some "Egyptian Neighborhoods": Abu Kabir, Salameh, Sumeil, Sheikh Muneis, Feja, etc. Egyptian occupation (1831-1840) produced thousands of Egyptian migrants in Jaffa, Petach Tiqva, Hadera, Kalansawa, Acre, Beit She'an, Nablus, etc.
> 
> ArrowTHOUSANDS OF ARAB MIGRANT LABORERS were imported by the Ottoman Empire and Britain for infrastructure projects, and as a result of the expansion of Jewish businesses, while severe British measures limited Jewish Aliya.
> 
> 
> The Truth About Palestinian Immigration « Commentary Magazine
> 
> Yoram Ettinger supported Newt Gingrich&#8217;s statement that Palestinians are an &#8220;invented&#8221; people by offering statistics to show that far from having lived in the Holy Land for millennia, most Palestinians descend from immigrants who came from throughout the Muslim world between 1845 and 1947.
> 
> Arab- Muslim Waves of Immigration to Palestine (the Land of Israel )/ DR.Rivka Shpak Lissak | Rivka Shpak Lissak
> 
> Palestinians are not the Indigenous people of the Holy Land
> 
> The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.
> The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.
> Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516 &#8211; 1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918 &#8211; 1948).
> 
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Contrary to political correctness, Palestinian Arabs have not been in the area west of the Jordan River from time immemorial; no Palestinian state ever existed, no Palestinian People was ever robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian &#8220;claim of return.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the 1845-1947 Muslim migrants from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.
> 
> 
> Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo
> 
> How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
> Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.
Click to expand...


I wish I could find that post but I'll never forget the time that Sherri, an enemy of the Jewish People, posted a document from the 1920's that showed Palestine having a continuous influx of nomads from Arabia.  The document said that Palestine was always replenished by these nomads.  She probably wasn't aware of what she had posted.


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

I just thought I would enter in a little current reality to the discussion.



			
				FOX NEWS:  Published March 05 said:
			
		

> *Operation: "Full Disclosure"*
> 
> JERUSALEM   Israeli naval forces raided a ship in the Red Sea early Wednesday and seized dozens of advanced rockets from Iran destined for Palestinian militants in Gaza that would have significantly boosted their ability to strike Israeli citizens, the military said.
> 
> The ship, the KLOS C, was carrying Syrian-made M-302 rockets and was intercepted more than 1,000 miles south of Israel off the coasts of Sudan and Eritrea, military spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told reporters.
> 
> He said the M-302 rockets have a range of up to 100 miles and would have significantly improved the capabilities of Gaza militants, putting nearly all of Israel in their range. Previously, Gaza militants have only been able to reach about 50 miles (80 kilometers) into Israel with their homegrown M-75 missiles. The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah used M-302s in a 2006 war against Israel, the military said.
> 
> There was no immediate comment from Iran or Gaza's Hamas rulers about the Israeli claims.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Israeli naval raid nabs Gaza-bound arms from Iran


*(COMMENT)*

This demonstrates the intent of the Palestinian and from whom they derive state support.   The quarantine is a security countermeasure.  If you drop the quarantine, you take a risk.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, I know your only half Sicilian, so you probably don't understand the ferocity of people defending their homes or kissing Western Imperialism's ass.
> 
> Had the Zionists decided to conquer Sicily, then they would have felt ferocity.
> 
> Ferocity in defending your homeland from European invaders is an old successful and noble endeavor for the Arabs...These are their homes,
> 
> Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you deny the Jews their right to self determination and the land promised to them under the mandate of Palestine. The muslims got their land in the form of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and should be thankful for their benefactors. The Jews were promised what is now Israel, gaza and the west bank until the arab muslims complained and demanded all the land of Palestine. Then UN should have stepped up to the mark there and then and said NO MORE ARAB LAND and enforced it with military action.
> 
> There is the problem in the ME arab muslim greed, not Zionism and not European invaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good post but you only mentioned 3 out of 22 Arab states and/or 57 Muslim states.  Talk about greed!
Click to expand...




 Because those are the ones created by the mandate of Palestine out the land of Palestine as decreed in the League of nations mandate for Palestine. The ones promised by Mcmahon and Balfour is respect of the help given against the Turkish Ottomans . The ISLAMONAZIS don't want history to start before 1930 as it will show the formation of Syria, Iraq and trans Jordan out of the wastelands of Palestine, the ethnic cleansing of their indigenous populations and the genocides that took place


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> I just thought I would enter in a little current reality to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FOX NEWS:  Published March 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Operation: "Full Disclosure"*
> 
> JERUSALEM   Israeli naval forces raided a ship in the Red Sea early Wednesday and seized dozens of advanced rockets from Iran destined for Palestinian militants in Gaza that would have significantly boosted their ability to strike Israeli citizens, the military said.
> 
> The ship, the KLOS C, was carrying Syrian-made M-302 rockets and was intercepted more than 1,000 miles south of Israel off the coasts of Sudan and Eritrea, military spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told reporters.
> 
> He said the M-302 rockets have a range of up to 100 miles and would have significantly improved the capabilities of Gaza militants, putting nearly all of Israel in their range. Previously, Gaza militants have only been able to reach about 50 miles (80 kilometers) into Israel with their homegrown M-75 missiles. The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah used M-302s in a 2006 war against Israel, the military said.
> 
> There was no immediate comment from Iran or Gaza's Hamas rulers about the Israeli claims.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Israeli naval raid nabs Gaza-bound arms from Iran
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This demonstrates the intent of the Palestinian and from whom they derive state support.   The quarantine is a security countermeasure.  If you drop the quarantine, you take a risk.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

VIDEO: Israeli Commandoes Raid Iranian Arms Ship - Israel Today | Israel News


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgSunbMwy7Q&feature=player_embedded#t=0]???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1tS-9sZCg&feature=player_embedded#t=0]The Course of Iran's Weaponry Shipment to Gaza - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will these do you
> 
> Jerusalem Summit
> 
> MOST PALESTINIAN REFUGEES WERE ARAB MIGRANTS
> 
> ArrowThe origin of most Palestinian refugees was from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Algeria and Libya, migrating during 1830-1947. The Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramleh grew 17, 12 and 5 times during 1880-1947.
> 
> Arrow"30,000-36,000 SYRIANS migrated to Palestine in recent months" (Syrian daily, La Syrie, Aug. 12, 1934).
> 
> ArrowJAFFA ABSORBED ARABS FROM 15 COUNTRIES, who populated some "Egyptian Neighborhoods": Abu Kabir, Salameh, Sumeil, Sheikh Muneis, Feja, etc. Egyptian occupation (1831-1840) produced thousands of Egyptian migrants in Jaffa, Petach Tiqva, Hadera, Kalansawa, Acre, Beit She'an, Nablus, etc.
> 
> ArrowTHOUSANDS OF ARAB MIGRANT LABORERS were imported by the Ottoman Empire and Britain for infrastructure projects, and as a result of the expansion of Jewish businesses, while severe British measures limited Jewish Aliya.
> 
> 
> The Truth About Palestinian Immigration « Commentary Magazine
> 
> Yoram Ettinger supported Newt Gingrichs statement that Palestinians are an invented people by offering statistics to show that far from having lived in the Holy Land for millennia, most Palestinians descend from immigrants who came from throughout the Muslim world between 1845 and 1947.
> 
> Arab- Muslim Waves of Immigration to Palestine (the Land of Israel )/ DR.Rivka Shpak Lissak | Rivka Shpak Lissak
> 
> Palestinians are not the Indigenous people of the Holy Land
> 
> The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.
> The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.
> Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516  1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918  1948).
> 
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Contrary to political correctness, Palestinian Arabs have not been in the area west of the Jordan River from time immemorial; no Palestinian state ever existed, no Palestinian People was ever robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian claim of return.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the 1845-1947 Muslim migrants from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.
> 
> 
> Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo
> 
> How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
> Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish I could find that post but I'll never forget the time that Sherri, an enemy of the Jewish People, posted a document from the 1920's that showed Palestine having a continuous influx of nomads from Arabia.  The document said that Palestine was always replenished by these nomads.  She probably wasn't aware of what she had posted.
Click to expand...


Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will these do you
> 
> Jerusalem Summit
> 
> MOST PALESTINIAN REFUGEES WERE ARAB MIGRANTS
> 
> ArrowThe origin of most Palestinian refugees was from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Algeria and Libya, migrating during 1830-1947. The Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramleh grew 17, 12 and 5 times during 1880-1947.
> 
> Arrow"30,000-36,000 SYRIANS migrated to Palestine in recent months" (Syrian daily, La Syrie, Aug. 12, 1934).
> 
> ArrowJAFFA ABSORBED ARABS FROM 15 COUNTRIES, who populated some "Egyptian Neighborhoods": Abu Kabir, Salameh, Sumeil, Sheikh Muneis, Feja, etc. Egyptian occupation (1831-1840) produced thousands of Egyptian migrants in Jaffa, Petach Tiqva, Hadera, Kalansawa, Acre, Beit She'an, Nablus, etc.
> 
> ArrowTHOUSANDS OF ARAB MIGRANT LABORERS were imported by the Ottoman Empire and Britain for infrastructure projects, and as a result of the expansion of Jewish businesses, while severe British measures limited Jewish Aliya.
> 
> 
> The Truth About Palestinian Immigration « Commentary Magazine
> 
> Yoram Ettinger supported Newt Gingrichs statement that Palestinians are an invented people by offering statistics to show that far from having lived in the Holy Land for millennia, most Palestinians descend from immigrants who came from throughout the Muslim world between 1845 and 1947.
> 
> Arab- Muslim Waves of Immigration to Palestine (the Land of Israel )/ DR.Rivka Shpak Lissak | Rivka Shpak Lissak
> 
> Palestinians are not the Indigenous people of the Holy Land
> 
> The Palestinian narrative, which is now widely accepted as a fact of history around the world, is the result of a systematic indoctrination through propaganda.
> The Palestinians are neither the "Indians" nor the "Africans" of the Holy Land.
> Most Palestinians immigrated to the Holy Land between the 19th and 20th centuries, during the Ottoman rule (1516  1918) and the British Mandate rule (1918  1948).
> 
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Who are the Palestinians?
> 
> Contrary to political correctness, Palestinian Arabs have not been in the area west of the Jordan River from time immemorial; no Palestinian state ever existed, no Palestinian People was ever robbed of its land and there is no basis for the Palestinian claim of return.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the 1845-1947 Muslim migrants from the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Bosnia, the Caucasus, Turkmenistan, Kurdistan, India, Afghanistan and Balochistan.
> 
> 
> Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo
> 
> How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
> Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could find that post but I'll never forget the time that Sherri, an enemy of the Jewish People, posted a document from the 1920's that showed Palestine having a continuous influx of nomads from Arabia.  The document said that Palestine was always replenished by these nomads.  She probably wasn't aware of what she had posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.
Click to expand...






I did it is just that you don't consider anything other than a muslim to be a neutral source.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:
			
		

> How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
> Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  *The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.*  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.
> 
> Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo



Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?

Also from your link:



> The original report claimed upwards of 400,000 KNOWN illegal *immigrants in Israel* since the start of Olso, obstensively *pushing the West Bank population* from 1 million to 1.5 million Arabs.



 What are they trying to say?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
> Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  *The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.*  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.
> 
> Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
> 
> Also from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original report claimed upwards of 400,000 KNOWN illegal *immigrants in Israel* since the start of Olso, obstensively *pushing the West Bank population* from 1 million to 1.5 million Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they trying to say?
Click to expand...






 Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses. 
 Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses.
> Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.


Don't talk to others about illegal settlements, you fucking hypocrite!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Arab Immigrants to the West Bank and Gaza?
> Terms such as "settlers" and "settlements" apply to Palestinians as much as Israelis.  Over ~400,000 Arabs have entered the West Bank and Gaza via Jordan since the start of Oslo.  *The Arabs have bult ~261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967.*  In comparison ~200,000 Jews have entered the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem Suburbs) and built ~144.settlements.
> 
> Illegal Arab immigration into "Palestine" - part of Oslo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
> 
> Also from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original report claimed upwards of 400,000 KNOWN illegal *immigrants in Israel* since the start of Olso, obstensively *pushing the West Bank population* from 1 million to 1.5 million Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. *That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses. *
> Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.
Click to expand...


That is a Jordan thing not a Palestinian thing. And you have to remember that the Zionists promised the West Bank to Jordan before the 1948 war.

Of course that does not answer my questions:

Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
> 
> Also from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they trying to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. *That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses. *
> Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a Jordan thing not a Palestinian thing. And you have to remember that the Zionists promised the West Bank to Jordan before the 1948 war.
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions:
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
Click to expand...


*Illegal Construction in Jerusalem by Justus Reid Weiner​*


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses.
> Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't talk to others about illegal settlements, you fucking hypocrite!
Click to expand...






 You have just proven my point that you cant deal with the reality of Palestine. The arab muslims are building illegal settlements on land stolen from the Jews back in 1948. The arab muslims are ethnically cleansing the land of all non muslims via genocide. There is no way the Palestinians could double their population numbers in two years without some form of illegal migration. There is no way the Palestinians could house themselves without some form of settlement building. 

 Use your brain for thinking and not your feet, save them for dancing


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
> 
> Also from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they trying to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. *That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses. *
> Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a Jordan thing not a Palestinian thing. And you have to remember that the Zionists promised the West Bank to Jordan before the 1948 war.
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions:
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
Click to expand...





 Stop trying to deflect away from the reality it is the Palestinians that are building settlements on stolen Jewish land. The illegal immigrants are entering Palestine and claiming a right of return to land they have never even seen.   The Zionists promised Jordan nothing it was the British that said they would not stand in their way if they wanted to take the Palestinians land away. The Zionists opposed this and said so.

 Unless you have some evidence from a Palestinian source that says otherwise, we could do with a laugh !


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple that not all the Palestinian refugees are even Palestinians, and have entered the area illegally. *That many of the muslim areas are illegal settlements, like their buildings in East Jerusalem built on demolished Jewish houses. *
> Now the truth is being told about illegal immigrants and illegal settlements the pro Palestinians are struggling to come to terms with it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Jordan thing not a Palestinian thing. And you have to remember that the Zionists promised the West Bank to Jordan before the 1948 war.
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions:
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to deflect away from the reality it is the Palestinians that are building settlements on stolen Jewish land. The illegal immigrants are entering Palestine and claiming a right of return to land they have never even seen.   The Zionists promised Jordan nothing it was the British that said they would not stand in their way if they wanted to take the Palestinians land away. The Zionists opposed this and said so.
> 
> Unless you have some evidence from a Palestinian source that says otherwise, we could do with a laugh !
Click to expand...


It was your post that claimed 261 illegal Arab settlements and you are the one who cannot provide a map or even a short list of these settlements.

BTE, Golda Meir was involved with the agreement to give the West Bank to Jordan.



> In 19461948, Abdullah actually supported partition in order that the Arab allocated areas of the British Mandate for Palestine could be annexed into Transjordan. Abdullah went so far as to have secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed upon partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947.
> 
> Abdullah I of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Jordan thing not a Palestinian thing. And you have to remember that the Zionists promised the West Bank to Jordan before the 1948 war.
> 
> Of course that does not answer my questions:
> 
> Where are these "settlement?" Do you have some names? Do you have a map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to deflect away from the reality it is the Palestinians that are building settlements on stolen Jewish land. The illegal immigrants are entering Palestine and claiming a right of return to land they have never even seen.   The Zionists promised Jordan nothing it was the British that said they would not stand in their way if they wanted to take the Palestinians land away. The Zionists opposed this and said so.
> 
> Unless you have some evidence from a Palestinian source that says otherwise, we could do with a laugh !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your post that claimed 261 illegal Arab settlements and you are the one who cannot provide a map or even a short list of these settlements.
> 
> BTE, Golda Meir was involved with the agreement to give the West Bank to Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 19461948, Abdullah actually supported partition in order that the Arab allocated areas of the British Mandate for Palestine could be annexed into Transjordan. Abdullah went so far as to have secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed upon partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947.
> 
> Abdullah I of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






But she did not as you say become involved in the agreement to give the west bank to Jordan.

 This from your link


  On 17 November 1948, in a secret meeting with Meir, Abdullah stated that he wished to annex all of the Arab parts as a minimum, and would prefer to annex all of Palestine.[18] This idea of secret Zionist-Hashemite negotiations in 1947 was expanded upon by New Historian Avi Shlaim in his book Collusion Across The Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. This partition plan was supported by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin who preferred to see Abdullah's territory increased at the expense of the Palestinians rather than risk the creation of a Palestinian state headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.[5][19]

The claim has, however, been strongly disputed by Israeli historian Efraim Karsh. In an article in Middle East Quarterly, he alleged that "extensive quotations from the reports of all three Jewish participants [at the meetings] do not support Shlaim's account...the report of Ezra Danin and Eliahu Sasson on the Golda Meir meeting (the most important Israeli participant and the person who allegedly clinched the deal with Abdullah) is conspicuously missing from Shlaim's book, despite his awareness of its existence".[20] According to Karsh, the meetings in question concerned "an agreement based on the imminent U.N. Partition Resolution, [in Meir's words] "to maintain law and order until the UN could establish a government in that area"; namely, a short-lived law enforcement operation to implement the UN Partition Resolution, not obstruct it



 As to the settlements why do you need a map when the evidence has been produced by other people showing that the Palestinians are building illegal settlements, and the Jerusalem authority is knocking them down. Just as they do with the illegal Jewish settlements


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could find that post but I'll never forget the time that Sherri, an enemy of the Jewish People, posted a document from the 1920's that showed Palestine having a continuous influx of nomads from Arabia.  The document said that Palestine was always replenished by these nomads.  She probably wasn't aware of what she had posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did it is just that you don't consider anything other than a muslim to be a neutral source.
Click to expand...


Good 'ol phoeny-all, providing links  from commentators with Zionist leanings refusing to deal honestly with the situation, insuring that his delusional fallacies will doom the Jewish state in the future...There is nothing more dangerous for a person or a nation into thinking that they are omnipotent in a situation until war and destruction...Power is a transitory thing, remember that, phoney-all.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did it is just that you don't consider anything other than a muslim to be a neutral source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good 'ol phoeny-all, providing links  from commentators with Zionist leanings refusing to deal honestly with the situation...
Click to expand...

That's OK...

You pro-Palestinian propaganda types don't think twice about serving-up one-sided opinion and commentary of your own when it suits your purposes.

And, given that Muslim anti-Jewish / anti-Israel propaganda is found to be false, far more often than that of the Israelis, or other Jewish-leaning persons and organizations - given the far more transparent nature of those sources, and their inherent need to withstand a far more rigorous and less-sympathetic scrutiny - I (and, indeed, most folks in The West) would be more inclined to trust an Israeli source than a Palestinian or Muslim one, at first glance, and generally speaking.

The Militant Muslim rep precedes its propaganda.



> "..._insuring that his delusional fallacies will doom the Jewish state in the future_..."


Yes, yes, yes... the sky is falling... make peace now, Israel, or die... yes, yes, yes... very nice.

Don't look now, but Israel's Muslim neighbor countries are pretty much rendered helpless as kittens at the moment, and likely to remain that way for a generation or two, while Israel completes its Reconquista and consolidates its holdings and strengthens its defenses and becomes even more capable of projecting power when they need it.

Every nation and every empire falls. It will probably be Israel's turn, once again, in, oh, say, the year 4000 A.D. or so. By which time every trace of the Palestinians will have disappeared. Even the name.



> "..._There is nothing more dangerous for a person or a nation into thinking that they are omnipotent in a situation until war and destruction_..."


Quite true. Israel is quite aware of its own relative strengths and weaknesses, I'm sure. They got a little dose of Humble Pie during their 2006 punitive sortie into Lebanon, when they first learned that Hezbollah had racheted-up their weapons and training, but, unlike the Palestinians, or, indeed, most of the arrogant and belligerent Arab-Muslim nations surrounding them, the Israelis openly admit and learn from their mistakes. That, too, is one of their strengths, relative to some of the fools that insist on messing with them.

Generally speaking, I don't think we have to worry about the Israelis getting overly cocky or arrogant, like their idiot neighbors.



> "..._Power is a transitory thing, remember that, phoney-all._"


Indeed it is.

But those with the best R&D and the biggest pop-guns last the longest.

Which - once the Reconquista is completed - probably includes Israel. I expect them to be around for a couple of thousand years, before they lose it again.

They're back, and nearly finished now with the task of reclaiming their entire former ancestral and spiritual homeland...from the River to the Sea... get used to it.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did it is just that you don't consider anything other than a muslim to be a neutral source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good 'ol phoeny-all, providing links  from commentators with Zionist leanings refusing to deal honestly with the situation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's OK...
> 
> You pro-Palestinian propaganda types don't think twice about serving-up one-sided opinion and commentary of your own when it suits your purposes.
> 
> And, given that Muslim anti-Jewish / anti-Israel propaganda is found to be false, far more often than that of the Israelis, or other Jewish-leaning persons and organizations - given the far more transparent nature of those sources, and their inherent need to withstand a far more rigorous and less-sympathetic scrutiny - I (and, indeed, most folks in The West) would be more inclined to trust an Israeli source than a Palestinian or Muslim one, at first glance, and generally speaking.
> 
> The Militant Muslim rep precedes its propaganda.
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes... the sky is falling... make peace now, Israel, or die... yes, yes, yes... very nice.
> 
> Don't look now, but Israel's Muslim neighbor countries are pretty much rendered helpless as kittens at the moment, and likely to remain that way for a generation or two, while Israel completes its Reconquista and consolidates its holdings and strengthens its defenses and becomes even more capable of projecting power when they need it.
> 
> Every nation and every empire falls. It will probably be Israel's turn, once again, in, oh, say, the year 4000 A.D. or so. By which time every trace of the Palestinians will have disappeared. Even the name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._There is nothing more dangerous for a person or a nation into thinking that they are omnipotent in a situation until war and destruction_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite true. Israel is quite aware of its own relative strengths and weaknesses, I'm sure. They got a little dose of Humble Pie during their 2006 punitive sortie into Lebanon, when they first learned that Hezbollah had racheted-up their weapons and training, but, unlike the Palestinians, or, indeed, most of the arrogant and belligerent Arab-Muslim nations surrounding them, the Israelis openly admit and learn from their mistakes. That, too, is one of their strengths, relative to some of the fools that insist on messing with them.
> 
> Generally speaking, I don't think we have to worry about the Israelis getting overly cocky or arrogant, like their idiot neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Power is a transitory thing, remember that, phoney-all._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed it is.
> 
> But those with the best R&D and the biggest pop-guns last the longest.
> 
> Which - once the Reconquista is completed - probably includes Israel. I expect them to be around for a couple of thousand years, before they lose it again.
> 
> They're back, and nearly finished now with the task of reclaiming their entire former ancestral and spiritual homeland...from the River to the Sea... get used to it.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force._"


And only a bigger idiot would believe that the Israelis will allow Internal Demographics to ever threaten them. They will evict and expel, long before that happens.

As to external demographics, once Israel has completed its Reconquista, and owns the land from the River to the Sea, and has permanent, defensible borders, external demographics won't matter very much.

They can survive there in-place for centuries - more like millenia - and will become a trusted and prized and valued neighbor-state to the surrounding Muslim powers, within a couple of generations after completing their Reconquista and with things quieting down shortly afterwards, as everyone settles-in to enjoy the peace and quiet.

In any event, that is precisely the long-term approach that the Israelis have been pursuing, and which they appear to be continuing to pursue... they simply out-fought and out-_thought_ the Arabs - the Arabs have poured blood and treasure into Old Palestine and shot their wad and really aren't capable-of nor willing-to make war again anytime soon against Israel, on behalf of the mad-dog Palestinians. The Israelis now merely need to finish consolidating their winnings and holdings.

Game over.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force._"
> 
> 
> 
> And only a bigger idiot would believe that the Israelis will allow Internal Demographics to ever threaten them. They will evict and expel, long before that happens.
> 
> As to external demographics, once Israel has completed its Reconquista, and owns the land from the River to the Sea, and has permanent, defensible borders, external demographics won't matter very much.
> 
> They can survive there in-place for centuries - more like millenia - and will become a trusted and prized and valued neighbor-state to the surrounding Muslim powers, within a couple of generations after completing their Reconquista and with things quieting down shortly afterwards, as everyone settles-in to enjoy the peace and quiet.
> 
> In any event, that is precisely the long-term approach that the Israelis have been pursuing, and which they appear to be continuing to pursue... they simply out-fought and out-_thought_ the Arabs - the Arabs have poured blood and treasure into Old Palestine and shot their wad and really aren't capable-of nor willing-to make war again anytime soon against Israel, on behalf of the mad-dog Palestinians. The Israelis now merely need to finish consolidating their winnings and holdings.Game over.
Click to expand...


Not only are you delusional, but as a long term strategist, you bray like a mule...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link from a neutral source Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did it is just that you don't consider anything other than a muslim to be a neutral source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good 'ol phoeny-all, providing links  from commentators with Zionist leanings refusing to deal honestly with the situation, insuring that his delusional fallacies will doom the Jewish state in the future...There is nothing more dangerous for a person or a nation into thinking that they are omnipotent in a situation until war and destruction...Power is a transitory thing, remember that, phoney-all.
Click to expand...






On the ropes and getting a battering so you resort to immature name calling and personal abuse, isn't this an illegal act on this board.

Everyone who tells the truth about Jerusalem, Palestinians and islam has Zionist leanings according to you. Yet you have never once said what you personally mean when you call someone a Zionist, care to tell everyone what a Zionist is and does ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good 'ol phoeny-all, providing links  from commentators with Zionist leanings refusing to deal honestly with the situation...
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK...
> 
> You pro-Palestinian propaganda types don't think twice about serving-up one-sided opinion and commentary of your own when it suits your purposes.
> 
> And, given that Muslim anti-Jewish / anti-Israel propaganda is found to be false, far more often than that of the Israelis, or other Jewish-leaning persons and organizations - given the far more transparent nature of those sources, and their inherent need to withstand a far more rigorous and less-sympathetic scrutiny - I (and, indeed, most folks in The West) would be more inclined to trust an Israeli source than a Palestinian or Muslim one, at first glance, and generally speaking.
> 
> The Militant Muslim rep precedes its propaganda.
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes... the sky is falling... make peace now, Israel, or die... yes, yes, yes... very nice.
> 
> Don't look now, but Israel's Muslim neighbor countries are pretty much rendered helpless as kittens at the moment, and likely to remain that way for a generation or two, while Israel completes its Reconquista and consolidates its holdings and strengthens its defenses and becomes even more capable of projecting power when they need it.
> 
> Every nation and every empire falls. It will probably be Israel's turn, once again, in, oh, say, the year 4000 A.D. or so. By which time every trace of the Palestinians will have disappeared. Even the name.
> 
> 
> Quite true. Israel is quite aware of its own relative strengths and weaknesses, I'm sure. They got a little dose of Humble Pie during their 2006 punitive sortie into Lebanon, when they first learned that Hezbollah had racheted-up their weapons and training, but, unlike the Palestinians, or, indeed, most of the arrogant and belligerent Arab-Muslim nations surrounding them, the Israelis openly admit and learn from their mistakes. That, too, is one of their strengths, relative to some of the fools that insist on messing with them.
> 
> Generally speaking, I don't think we have to worry about the Israelis getting overly cocky or arrogant, like their idiot neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Power is a transitory thing, remember that, phoney-all._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed it is.
> 
> But those with the best R&D and the biggest pop-guns last the longest.
> 
> Which - once the Reconquista is completed - probably includes Israel. I expect them to be around for a couple of thousand years, before they lose it again.
> 
> They're back, and nearly finished now with the task of reclaiming their entire former ancestral and spiritual homeland...from the River to the Sea... get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force.
Click to expand...







What demographics as the Islamic world is falling apart as we watch. We have Syria in the grip of a civil war, helped along by illegal insurgents from Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen and Egypt. Leaving their own terrorist groups badly under strength and fit for destruction. The arab spring has blown its chance and now we are seeing the real reason for the civil wars in islam, domination and power. They have no chance of getting nuclear capability if they keep murdering their intelligentsia and asking illiterate mujahidin to take control of the nuclear race.

Look at what happened to Syria and Iran when they started to refine weapons grade uranium,    BOOM and the plants were destroyed.


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force._"
> 
> 
> 
> And only a bigger idiot would believe that the Israelis will allow Internal Demographics to ever threaten them. They will evict and expel, long before that happens.
> 
> As to external demographics, once Israel has completed its Reconquista, and owns the land from the River to the Sea, and has permanent, defensible borders, external demographics won't matter very much.
> 
> They can survive there in-place for centuries - more like millenia - and will become a trusted and prized and valued neighbor-state to the surrounding Muslim powers, within a couple of generations after completing their Reconquista and with things quieting down shortly afterwards, as everyone settles-in to enjoy the peace and quiet.
> 
> In any event, that is precisely the long-term approach that the Israelis have been pursuing, and which they appear to be continuing to pursue... they simply out-fought and out-_thought_ the Arabs - the Arabs have poured blood and treasure into Old Palestine and shot their wad and really aren't capable-of nor willing-to make war again anytime soon against Israel, on behalf of the mad-dog Palestinians. The Israelis now merely need to finish consolidating their winnings and holdings.
> 
> Game over.
Click to expand...






Isnt this already the case on Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan, and it looks like Saudi will soon be joining the party. The Palestinians will soon be hemmed in on all sides by hostile arabs and must either capitulate or die out. They are on their last chance and will soon be just another name in the history books, while Israel is providing the much needed impetus that the M.E needs. Ultra efficient de-salination plants to produce irrigation water and new methods of farming


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force._"
> 
> 
> 
> And only a bigger idiot would believe that the Israelis will allow Internal Demographics to ever threaten them. They will evict and expel, long before that happens.
> 
> As to external demographics, once Israel has completed its Reconquista, and owns the land from the River to the Sea, and has permanent, defensible borders, external demographics won't matter very much.
> 
> They can survive there in-place for centuries - more like millenia - and will become a trusted and prized and valued neighbor-state to the surrounding Muslim powers, within a couple of generations after completing their Reconquista and with things quieting down shortly afterwards, as everyone settles-in to enjoy the peace and quiet.
> 
> In any event, that is precisely the long-term approach that the Israelis have been pursuing, and which they appear to be continuing to pursue... they simply out-fought and out-_thought_ the Arabs - the Arabs have poured blood and treasure into Old Palestine and shot their wad and really aren't capable-of nor willing-to make war again anytime soon against Israel, on behalf of the mad-dog Palestinians. The Israelis now merely need to finish consolidating their winnings and holdings.Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you delusional, but as a long term strategist, you bray like a mule...
Click to expand...


You calling someone else delusional is like Tinmore calling someone else a propagandist...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Don't worry, its not a popgun affair, only an idiot would think demographics depend on force._"
> 
> 
> 
> And only a bigger idiot would believe that the Israelis will allow Internal Demographics to ever threaten them. They will evict and expel, long before that happens.
> 
> As to external demographics, once Israel has completed its Reconquista, and owns the land from the River to the Sea, and has permanent, defensible borders, external demographics won't matter very much.
> 
> They can survive there in-place for centuries - more like millenia - and will become a trusted and prized and valued neighbor-state to the surrounding Muslim powers, within a couple of generations after completing their Reconquista and with things quieting down shortly afterwards, as everyone settles-in to enjoy the peace and quiet.
> 
> In any event, that is precisely the long-term approach that the Israelis have been pursuing, and which they appear to be continuing to pursue... they simply out-fought and out-_thought_ the Arabs - the Arabs have poured blood and treasure into Old Palestine and shot their wad and really aren't capable-of nor willing-to make war again anytime soon against Israel, on behalf of the mad-dog Palestinians. The Israelis now merely need to finish consolidating their winnings and holdings.Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you delusional, but as a long term strategist, you bray like a mule...
Click to expand...






 Why don't you try looking at the demographics and see that the hard line extremist Islamic groups are dwindling away. They are spread far too thinly on too many fronts and are in grave danger of sinking without a trace. Israel is still there after 5 attempts by the arabs to destroy it, and finally they have realised that they don't have the mindset to wage modern war. That is war from a distance were casualties are minimal, but destruction is a foregone conclusion. The terrorist groups can try mass attacks against Israel if they want, but all they will succeed in doing is fertilising the sand on their side of the fence, and more of their numbers will be gone for ever.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> You have just proven my point that you cant deal with the reality of Palestine. The arab muslims are building illegal settlements on land stolen from the Jews back in 1948. The arab muslims are ethnically cleansing the land of all non muslims via genocide. There is no way the Palestinians could double their population numbers in two years without some form of illegal migration. There is no way the Palestinians could house themselves without some form of settlement building.


And there is no way you can prove anything you just said to be true.




Phoenall said:


> Use your brain for thinking and not your feet, save them for dancing


You like watching men dance?

Is that how you get your freak on?


----------



## pbel

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just proven my point that you cant deal with the reality of Palestine. The arab muslims are building illegal settlements on land stolen from the Jews back in 1948. The arab muslims are ethnically cleansing the land of all non muslims via genocide. There is no way the Palestinians could double their population numbers in two years without some form of illegal migration. There is no way the Palestinians could house themselves without some form of settlement building.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no way you can prove anything you just said to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your brain for thinking and not your feet, save them for dancing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like watching men dance?
> 
> Is that how you get your freak on?
Click to expand...


Billo, I've been on this board many years, Phoeney-all is a sick double talking liar who fails to give links to his statements...I try very hard not to debate people who lie.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just proven my point that you cant deal with the reality of Palestine. The arab muslims are building illegal settlements on land stolen from the Jews back in 1948. The arab muslims are ethnically cleansing the land of all non muslims via genocide. There is no way the Palestinians could double their population numbers in two years without some form of illegal migration. There is no way the Palestinians could house themselves without some form of settlement building.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no way you can prove anything you just said to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your brain for thinking and not your feet, save them for dancing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like watching men dance?
> 
> Is that how you get your freak on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billo, I've been on this board many years, Phoeney-all is a sick double talking liar who fails to give links to his statements...I try very hard not to debate people who lie.
Click to expand...



Since Phoenall only joined this board two years ago, you certainly have not seen his posts here for many years.  However, those who know you from elsewhere realize that the entire Middle East could be on fire with thousands and thousands of people being killed every day and you, as usual, would still be focusing only on Israel.  At least you have given up making poems about people you don't like, pulling out your coloring box, and lastly fighting with a young Jewish police officer, making sure you kept telling her about the police eating donuts.  That really was a great discussion regarding the Middle East in general.  I wonder how anyone would debate someone who kept on bringing up donuts and police officers.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no way you can prove anything you just said to be true.
> 
> 
> You like watching men dance?
> 
> Is that how you get your freak on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, I've been on this board many years, Phoeney-all is a sick double talking liar who fails to give links to his statements...I try very hard not to debate people who lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since Phoenall only joined this board two years ago, you certainly have not seen his posts here for many years.  However, those who know you from elsewhere realize that the entire Middle East could be on fire with thousands and thousands of people being killed every day and you, as usual, would still be focusing only on Israel.  At least you have given up making poems about people you don't like, pulling out your coloring box, and lastly fighting with a young Jewish police officer, making sure you kept telling her about the police eating donuts.  That really was a great discussion regarding the Middle East in general.  I wonder how anyone would debate someone who kept on bringing up donuts and police officers.
Click to expand...


I have a sense of humor Sally, but sadly you're airhead numero uno.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, I've been on this board many years, Phoeney-all is a sick double talking liar who fails to give links to his statements...I try very hard not to debate people who lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Phoenall only joined this board two years ago, you certainly have not seen his posts here for many years.  However, those who know you from elsewhere realize that the entire Middle East could be on fire with thousands and thousands of people being killed every day and you, as usual, would still be focusing only on Israel.  At least you have given up making poems about people you don't like, pulling out your coloring box, and lastly fighting with a young Jewish police officer, making sure you kept telling her about the police eating donuts.  That really was a great discussion regarding the Middle East in general.  I wonder how anyone would debate someone who kept on bringing up donuts and police officers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a sense of humor Sally, but sadly you're airhead numero uno.
Click to expand...


Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just proven my point that you cant deal with the reality of Palestine. The arab muslims are building illegal settlements on land stolen from the Jews back in 1948. The arab muslims are ethnically cleansing the land of all non muslims via genocide. There is no way the Palestinians could double their population numbers in two years without some form of illegal migration. There is no way the Palestinians could house themselves without some form of settlement building.
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no way you can prove anything you just said to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your brain for thinking and not your feet, save them for dancing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like watching men dance?
> 
> Is that how you get your freak on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billo, I've been on this board many years, Phoeney-all is a sick double talking liar who fails to give links to his statements...I try very hard not to debate people who lie.
Click to expand...





 Here is yet another link   Arabs illegally settling Negev in land grab race | Jewish Tribune

JERUSALEM - There is an ownership race between Arabs and Jews in the land of Israel that is not limited to the territories of Judea and Samaria, and time is of the essence.
In the Negev, for instance, the Bedouin now claim more than 200,000 acres  an area 16 times the size of Tel Aviv, explained Ari Briggs, director of Regavims international department.

The Bedouin in the Negev dont live in tents anymore. Tents are a façade for further building, which is often done on JNF land, he said.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, I've been on this board many years, Phoeney-all is a sick double talking liar who fails to give links to his statements...I try very hard not to debate people who lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Phoenall only joined this board two years ago, you certainly have not seen his posts here for many years.  However, those who know you from elsewhere realize that the entire Middle East could be on fire with thousands and thousands of people being killed every day and you, as usual, would still be focusing only on Israel.  At least you have given up making poems about people you don't like, pulling out your coloring box, and lastly fighting with a young Jewish police officer, making sure you kept telling her about the police eating donuts.  That really was a great discussion regarding the Middle East in general.  I wonder how anyone would debate someone who kept on bringing up donuts and police officers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a sense of humor Sally, but sadly you're airhead numero uno.
Click to expand...




If you did have a sense of humour you would find this very funny


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Phoenall only joined this board two years ago, you certainly have not seen his posts here for many years.  However, those who know you from elsewhere realize that the entire Middle East could be on fire with thousands and thousands of people being killed every day and you, as usual, would still be focusing only on Israel.  At least you have given up making poems about people you don't like, pulling out your coloring box, and lastly fighting with a young Jewish police officer, making sure you kept telling her about the police eating donuts.  That really was a great discussion regarding the Middle East in general.  I wonder how anyone would debate someone who kept on bringing up donuts and police officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a sense of humor Sally, but sadly you're airhead numero uno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
Click to expand...


What is happening in the Arab awakening is that the people of the region want to kick out all the Dictators kings and sheiks whose corruptions have robbed these people of a decent life...The USA, Israel and the Sheiks have colluded together to keep them in line...

This is the core of the revolt and it will never be stopped by anyone....

When the dust clears in 20-30 years the Arab Masses will prosper...that prosperity of the future is a bad omen for Israel whom the people hate because she colluded to keep them down.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a sense of humor Sally, but sadly you're airhead numero uno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is happening in the Arab awakening is that the people of the region want to kick out all the Dictators kings and sheiks whose corruptions have robbed these people of a decent life...The USA, Israel and the Sheiks have colluded together to keep them in line...
> 
> This is the core of the revolt and it will never be stopped by anyone....
> 
> When the dust clears in 20-30 years the Arab Masses will prosper...that prosperity of the future is a bad omen for Israel whom the people hate because she colluded to keep them down.
Click to expand...


Yes, Pbel, that is why the extremists have claimed that Syria is the stepping stone for the brand new Caiphate.  This is also why you see these Jihadists coming into Syria from all parts of the world.    Since you have had nothing to say about how some of those extremists are pushing the Christians into Dhimmitude in Syria, maybe you, too, are looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.   Have you ever thought that the Musslim masses in the Middle East as well as places like Southeast Asia might prosper if they would stop being so busy murdering those Muslims of different sects as well as those who are non Muslims?  Wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on education in the 21st century instead of them plotting to kill innocent others.  Perhaps in time (hopefully with my fingers crossed) in the Muslim world, the people will wake up that if you have tolerance in religion and concentrate into pulling your people into the modern world instead of killing, they might be better off.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is happening in the Arab awakening is that the people of the region want to kick out all the Dictators kings and sheiks whose corruptions have robbed these people of a decent life...The USA, Israel and the Sheiks have colluded together to keep them in line...
> 
> This is the core of the revolt and it will never be stopped by anyone....
> 
> When the dust clears in 20-30 years the Arab Masses will prosper...that prosperity of the future is a bad omen for Israel whom the people hate because she colluded to keep them down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Pbel, that is why the extremists have claimed that Syria is the stepping stone for the brand new Caiphate.  This is also why you see these Jihadists coming into Syria from all parts of the world.    Since you have had nothing to say about how some of those extremists are pushing the Christians into Dhimmitude in Syria, maybe you, too, are looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.   Have you ever thought that the Musslim masses in the Middle East as well as places like Southeast Asia might prosper if they would stop being so busy murdering those Muslims of different sects as well as those who are non Muslims?  Wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on education in the 21st century instead of them plotting to kill innocent others.  Perhaps in time (hopefully with my fingers crossed) in the Muslim world, the people will wake up that if you have tolerance in religion and concentrate into pulling your people into the modern world instead of killing, they might be better off.
Click to expand...


Such nice morality but say nothing about Israeli land thefts or Western Imperialism in the ME that causes this bloodshed...

Like the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe which threw out all the kings save England, the ME will too achieve this Political development soon...


----------



## toastman

Israel is what causes bloodshed in the ME Pbel, is that what you just said??


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Israel is what causes bloodshed in the ME Pbel, is that what you just said??



*Yes*, as the vanguard to Western Imperialism that gives the Sheiks, kings and dictators their corrupt money and robs the average person a decent living...

That's why they revolt Toast...


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is happening in the Arab awakening is that the people of the region want to kick out all the Dictators kings and sheiks whose corruptions have robbed these people of a decent life...The USA, Israel and the Sheiks have colluded together to keep them in line...
> 
> This is the core of the revolt and it will never be stopped by anyone....
> 
> When the dust clears in 20-30 years the Arab Masses will prosper...that prosperity of the future is a bad omen for Israel whom the people hate because she colluded to keep them down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Pbel, that is why the extremists have claimed that Syria is the stepping stone for the brand new Caiphate.  This is also why you see these Jihadists coming into Syria from all parts of the world.    Since you have had nothing to say about how some of those extremists are pushing the Christians into Dhimmitude in Syria, maybe you, too, are looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.   Have you ever thought that the Musslim masses in the Middle East as well as places like Southeast Asia might prosper if they would stop being so busy murdering those Muslims of different sects as well as those who are non Muslims?  Wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on education in the 21st century instead of them plotting to kill innocent others.  Perhaps in time (hopefully with my fingers crossed) in the Muslim world, the people will wake up that if you have tolerance in religion and concentrate into pulling your people into the modern world instead of killing, they might be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such nice morality but say nothing about Israeli land thefts or Western Imperialism in the ME that causes this bloodshed...
> 
> Like the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe which threw out all the kings save England, the ME will too achieve this Political development soon...
Click to expand...


Pbel, you are not really fooling anyone, and that is why whatever you say is just fluffed off as being the same old, same old stuff you have been saying for years.  If there were no Jews governing Israel, the Muslims would hate them all the same.  They have hated them since the inception of Islam.  Aris seems to be the one educated in all of this, being brough up in the Middle East.  Ask her about this since she has studied this phenomena for a long time.  I realize you are salivating over the possible fall of Israel, and it is quite obvious that you don't care about the thousands and thousands (even millions) killed in the name of Islam since you can't blame the Jews or America for this.  Do you really think all those suicide and car bombings in Pakistan, for instance, have anything to do with Israel or the U.S. or have they to do with one sect hating the other sect?


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Pbel, that is why the extremists have claimed that Syria is the stepping stone for the brand new Caiphate.  This is also why you see these Jihadists coming into Syria from all parts of the world.    Since you have had nothing to say about how some of those extremists are pushing the Christians into Dhimmitude in Syria, maybe you, too, are looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.   Have you ever thought that the Musslim masses in the Middle East as well as places like Southeast Asia might prosper if they would stop being so busy murdering those Muslims of different sects as well as those who are non Muslims?  Wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on education in the 21st century instead of them plotting to kill innocent others.  Perhaps in time (hopefully with my fingers crossed) in the Muslim world, the people will wake up that if you have tolerance in religion and concentrate into pulling your people into the modern world instead of killing, they might be better off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such nice morality but say nothing about Israeli land thefts or Western Imperialism in the ME that causes this bloodshed...
> 
> Like the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe which threw out all the kings save England, the ME will too achieve this Political development soon...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, you are not really fooling anyone, and that is why whatever you say is just fluffed off as being the same old, same old stuff you have been saying for years.  If there were no Jews governing Israel, the Muslims would hate them all the same.  They have hated them since the inception of Islam.  Aris seems to be the one educated in all of this, being brough up in the Middle East.  Ask her about this since she has studied this phenomena for a long time.  I realize you are salivating over the possible fall of Israel, and it is quite obvious that you don't care about the thousands and thousands (even millions) killed in the name of Islam since you can't blame the Jews or America for this.  Do you really think all those suicide and car bombings in Pakistan, for instance, have anything to do with Israel or the U.S. or have they to do with one sect hating the other sect?
Click to expand...


Oh Sally, when you keep attacking the messenger rather than the message, or fly off on a tangent in Pakistan and dwell on hate rather than Justice by ignoring all UN resolutions and even USA pressure on the occupation, I repeat the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I can understand your frustration and motive.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such nice morality but say nothing about Israeli land thefts or Western Imperialism in the ME that causes this bloodshed...
> 
> Like the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe which threw out all the kings save England, the ME will too achieve this Political development soon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, you are not really fooling anyone, and that is why whatever you say is just fluffed off as being the same old, same old stuff you have been saying for years.  If there were no Jews governing Israel, the Muslims would hate them all the same.  They have hated them since the inception of Islam.  Aris seems to be the one educated in all of this, being brough up in the Middle East.  Ask her about this since she has studied this phenomena for a long time.  I realize you are salivating over the possible fall of Israel, and it is quite obvious that you don't care about the thousands and thousands (even millions) killed in the name of Islam since you can't blame the Jews or America for this.  Do you really think all those suicide and car bombings in Pakistan, for instance, have anything to do with Israel or the U.S. or have they to do with one sect hating the other sect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Sally, when you keep attacking the messenger rather than the message, or fly off on a tangent in Pakistan and dwell on hate rather than Justice by ignoring all UN resolutions and even USA pressure on the occupation, I repeat the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I can understand your frustration and motive.
Click to expand...


But you see, Pbel, many of us who have been reading you a long, long time know you and realize that you are only focused on Israel and never have really been interested in what is happening elsewhere no matter how many dead bodies are lying on the ground because of being murdered for their religious beliefs.  You might think you are fooling everyone, but you really aren't.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, you are not really fooling anyone, and that is why whatever you say is just fluffed off as being the same old, same old stuff you have been saying for years.  If there were no Jews governing Israel, the Muslims would hate them all the same.  They have hated them since the inception of Islam.  Aris seems to be the one educated in all of this, being brough up in the Middle East.  Ask her about this since she has studied this phenomena for a long time.  I realize you are salivating over the possible fall of Israel, and it is quite obvious that you don't care about the thousands and thousands (even millions) killed in the name of Islam since you can't blame the Jews or America for this.  Do you really think all those suicide and car bombings in Pakistan, for instance, have anything to do with Israel or the U.S. or have they to do with one sect hating the other sect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Sally, when you keep attacking the messenger rather than the message, or fly off on a tangent in Pakistan and dwell on hate rather than Justice by ignoring all UN resolutions and even USA pressure on the occupation, I repeat the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I can understand your frustration and motive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you see, Pbel, many of us who have been reading you a long, long time know you and realize that you are only focused on Israel and never have really been interested in what is happening elsewhere no matter how many dead bodies are lying on the ground because of being murdered for their religious beliefs.  You might think you are fooling everyone, but you really aren't.
Click to expand...


Why does it matter what I'm focused on pray tell...would my focus change veracity in my posts?


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Sally, when you keep attacking the messenger rather than the message, or fly off on a tangent in Pakistan and dwell on hate rather than Justice by ignoring all UN resolutions and even USA pressure on the occupation, I repeat the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I can understand your frustration and motive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, Pbel, many of us who have been reading you a long, long time know you and realize that you are only focused on Israel and never have really been interested in what is happening elsewhere no matter how many dead bodies are lying on the ground because of being murdered for their religious beliefs.  You might think you are fooling everyone, but you really aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what I'm focused on pray tell...would my focus change veracity in my posts?
Click to expand...


I would think that a person who is supposedly civilized would also focus on those unfortunate people who are being murdered for their religious beliefs in the Middle East.  It appears that you do not care what happened to them and is still happening.  Anyhow, since you are so hot about the Arab uprisings, why not give us your opinion as to what is going to happen in Morocco?  Do you think that King Mohammed will be able to hold on to his throne or do you think the Islamists will eventually take over there?  In addition, what do you think about the Russian Jihadists now in Syria excuting people?   Don't you think they would have enough to do murdering innocent Russians than to run to Syria to kill people?


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, Pbel, many of us who have been reading you a long, long time know you and realize that you are only focused on Israel and never have really been interested in what is happening elsewhere no matter how many dead bodies are lying on the ground because of being murdered for their religious beliefs.  You might think you are fooling everyone, but you really aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what I'm focused on pray tell...would my focus change veracity in my posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that a person who is supposedly civilized would also focus on those unfortunate people who are being murdered for their religious beliefs in the Middle East.  It appears that you do not care what happened to them and is still happening.  Anyhow, since you are so hot about the Arab uprisings, why not give us your opinion as to what is going to happen in Morocco?  Do you think that King Mohammed will be able to hold on to his throne or do you think the Islamists will eventually take over there?  In addition, what do you think about the Russian Jihadists now in Syria excuting people?   Don't you think they would have enough to do murdering innocent Russians than to run to Syria to kill people?
Click to expand...


Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...

Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.

Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab Awakening...


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what I'm focused on pray tell...would my focus change veracity in my posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that a person who is supposedly civilized would also focus on those unfortunate people who are being murdered for their religious beliefs in the Middle East.  It appears that you do not care what happened to them and is still happening.  Anyhow, since you are so hot about the Arab uprisings, why not give us your opinion as to what is going to happen in Morocco?  Do you think that King Mohammed will be able to hold on to his throne or do you think the Islamists will eventually take over there?  In addition, what do you think about the Russian Jihadists now in Syria excuting people?   Don't you think they would have enough to do murdering innocent Russians than to run to Syria to kill people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...
> 
> Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.
> 
> Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab wakening...
Click to expand...


This is the 21st century, Pbel.  I don't think we see Christians killing each other because of their differing religious beliefs.  If you see Catholics killing Protestants or Greek Orthodox, will you let ue know?  Haven't you kept up with what many of the Muslim religious leaders are saying -- that Islam is not compatible with Democracy -- and the people listen to these leaders.  Perhaps you can be the one to convince them to change their minds.  I wonder if Pbel can prove to us from some legitimate site where it is reported that Israel has "colluded" with the dictators to keep the people in line and poor.  Do you have some source for what you are claiming, Pbel?


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that a person who is supposedly civilized would also focus on those unfortunate people who are being murdered for their religious beliefs in the Middle East.  It appears that you do not care what happened to them and is still happening.  Anyhow, since you are so hot about the Arab uprisings, why not give us your opinion as to what is going to happen in Morocco?  Do you think that King Mohammed will be able to hold on to his throne or do you think the Islamists will eventually take over there?  In addition, what do you think about the Russian Jihadists now in Syria excuting people?   Don't you think they would have enough to do murdering innocent Russians than to run to Syria to kill people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...
> 
> Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.
> 
> Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab wakening...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the 21st century, Pbel.  I don't think we see Christians killing each other because of their differing religious beliefs.  If you see Catholics killing Protestants or Greek Orthodox, will you let ue know?  Haven't you kept up with what many of the Muslim religious leaders are saying -- that Islam is not compatible with Democracy -- and the people listen to these leaders.  Perhaps you can be the one to convince them to change their minds.  I wonder if Pbel can prove to us from some legitimate site where it is reported that Israel has "colluded" with the dictators to keep the people in line and poor.  Do you have some source for what you are claiming, Pbel?
Click to expand...



Many activists like myself can read between the lines...

Beacon Broadside: Middle East*Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East* 

KHALIDI-BrokersOfDeceitAn examination of the failure of the United States as a broker in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, through three key historical moments 

For more than seven decades the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people has raged on with no end in sight, and for much of that time, the United States has been involved as a mediator in the conflict. In this book, acclaimed historian Rashid Khalidi zeroes in on the United States's role as the purported impartial broker in this failed peace process. 

Khalidi closely analyzes three historical moments that illuminate how the United States' involvement has, in fact, thwarted progress toward peace between Israel and Palestine. The first moment he investigates is the "Reagan Plan" of 1982, when Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin refused to accept the Reagan administration's proposal to reframe the Camp David Accords more impartially. The second moment covers the period after the Madrid Peace Conference, from 1991 to 1993, during which negotiations between Israel and Palestine were brokered by the United States until the signing of the secretly negotiated Oslo accords. Finally, Khalidi takes on President Barack Obama's retreat from plans to insist on halting the settlements in the West Bank.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is what causes bloodshed in the ME Pbel, is that what you just said??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes*, as the vanguard to Western Imperialism that gives the Sheiks, kings and dictators their corrupt money and robs the average person a decent living...
> 
> That's why they revolt Toast...
Click to expand...


And what does what you said have to do with Israel affecting the Arabs Muslims terrorizing the ME

You people are not normal, I swear. Blaming Israel for the problems of the ME is so ridiculous, it honestly flushes ANY credibility you have down the sewer, where Tinmores credibility is swimming. 
Of course, you have absolutely no way to prove your anti semitic ideology, unless maybe your proof lies in the readings of Elders of Zion

Muslims are killing, torturing, oppressing, discriminating, hating because of Israel, even though Israel has nothing to do with it... Interesting theory. I would ask what you are smoking but Im scared to know


----------



## toastman

The mind of the pro Palestinian anti Zionist is a complex one


----------



## Sally

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is what causes bloodshed in the ME Pbel, is that what you just said??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes*, as the vanguard to Western Imperialism that gives the Sheiks, kings and dictators their corrupt money and robs the average person a decent living...
> 
> That's why they revolt Toast...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does what you said have to do with Israel affecting the Arabs Muslims terrorizing the ME
> 
> You people are not normal, I swear. Blaming Israel for the problems of the ME is so ridiculous, it honestly flushes ANY credibility you have down the sewer, where Tinmores credibility is swimming.
> Of course, you have absolutely no way to prove your anti semitic ideology, unless maybe your proof lies in the readings of Elders of Zion
> 
> Muslims are killing, torturing, oppressing, discriminating, hating because of Israel, even though Israel has nothing to do with it... Interesting theory. I would ask what you are smoking but Im scared to know
Click to expand...


You will notice that Pbel says he reads between the lines as if reading between the lines makes it true.  He reads between the lines when it comes to Israel and the U.S., but he appears blind to what is actually happening in the Middle East.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> The mind of the pro Palestinian anti Zionist is a complex one



There is nothing complex, Toast...I'm neither Pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist, but I do have a dislike for the extremists on both sides...

Go back to the 67 armistice lines gain recognition and the war will collapse before the Jihadists take over all countries.

This conflict has spread well beyond the borders of Palestine, and they are winning the hearts of their people.

Nothing stops the march of History.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mind of the pro Palestinian anti Zionist is a complex one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing complex, Toast...I'm neither Pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist, but I do have a dislike for the extremists on both sides...
> 
> Go back to the 67 armistice lines gain recognition and the war will collapse before the Jihadists take over all countries.
> 
> This conflict has spread well beyond the borders of Palestine, and they are winning the hearts of their people.
> 
> Nothing stops the march of History.
Click to expand...


Going back to the 67 borders, which BTW were never recognized in the first place, will stop the killing and all the other things I said as well as extremists recognizing the existence of Israel?? What are you talking about


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mind of the pro Palestinian anti Zionist is a complex one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing complex, Toast...I'm neither Pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist, but I do have a dislike for the extremists on both sides...
> 
> Go back to the 67 armistice lines gain recognition and the war will collapse before the Jihadists take over all countries.
> 
> This conflict has spread well beyond the borders of Palestine, and they are winning the hearts of their people.
> 
> Nothing stops the march of History.
Click to expand...

Submit to our demands, Jews, or the Ummah Jihad will bring you down!

Submit, oh infidels, to the Will of Allah, or the Warriors of Allah will cause you to fall.

Revert to the 1967 borders, oh Israel, or Allah (the Merciful, the Compassionate) will smite you, hip and thigh.

The sky is falling... the sky is falling... the sky is falling...






Stop it, pbel, yer scarin' everybody...


----------



## Roudy

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is what causes bloodshed in the ME Pbel, is that what you just said??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes*, as the vanguard to Western Imperialism that gives the Sheiks, kings and dictators their corrupt money and robs the average person a decent living...
> 
> That's why they revolt Toast...
Click to expand...

And probably Israel is the reason Muslims have been slaughtering each other and others before 1948. Ha ha ha.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mind of the pro Palestinian anti Zionist is a complex one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing complex, Toast...I'm neither Pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist, but I do have a dislike for the extremists on both sides...
> 
> Go back to the 67 armistice lines gain recognition and the war will collapse before the Jihadists take over all countries.
> 
> This conflict has spread well beyond the borders of Palestine, and they are winning the hearts of their people.
> 
> Nothing stops the march of History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going back to the 67 borders, which BTW were never recognized in the first place, will stop the killing and all the other things I said as well as extremists recognizing the existence of Israel?? What are you talking about
Click to expand...

Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "...Does it matter what was?..."


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it._ - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905_

Israel has tried 'Land for Peace' deals before.

Those never work out very well.

I think they've learned their lesson.

No point in skedaddling back to the 1967 lines, when there will simply be more demands after a brief interlude.

Bottom line: the Arabs will not be content until they have it all.

Israel requires ownership and control of the entire region - River to Sea - the white area on the map, below...






...in order to have defensible borders that can be sustained for centuries and generations.

And they are going to get them.

They've heard the land-for-peace bullshit once too often.

Can't blame 'em for laughing at such, nowadays.

That window of opportunity closed quite some time ago.

Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, the Israelis are not fools.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Does it matter what was?..."
> 
> 
> 
> Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it._ - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905_
> 
> Israel has tried 'Land for Peace' deals before.
> 
> Those never work out very well.
> 
> I think they've learned their lesson.
> 
> No point in skedaddling back to the 1967 lines, when there will simply be more demands after a brief interlude.
> 
> Bottom line: the Arabs will not be content until they have it all.
> 
> Israel requires ownership and control of the entire region - River to Sea - the white area on the map, below...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in order to have defensible borders that can be sustained for centuries and generations.
> 
> And they are going to get them.
> 
> They've heard the land-for-peace bullshit once too often.
> 
> Can't blame 'em for laughing at such, nowadays.
> 
> That window of opportunity closed quite some time ago.
> 
> Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, the Israelis are not fools.
Click to expand...


To be honest you're beginning to sound like Daffy Duck if you think the Israelis are going to shoot up the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Does it matter what was?..."
> 
> 
> 
> Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it._ - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905_
> 
> Israel has tried 'Land for Peace' deals before.
> 
> Those never work out very well.
> 
> I think they've learned their lesson.
> 
> No point in skedaddling back to the 1967 lines, when there will simply be more demands after a brief interlude.
> 
> Bottom line: the Arabs will not be content until they have it all.
> 
> Israel requires ownership and control of the entire region - River to Sea - the white area on the map, below...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in order to have defensible borders that can be sustained for centuries and generations.
> 
> And they are going to get them.
> 
> They've heard the land-for-peace bullshit once too often.
> 
> Can't blame 'em for laughing at such, nowadays.
> 
> That window of opportunity closed quite some time ago.
> 
> Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, the Israelis are not fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest you'er beginning to sound like Daffy Duck if you think the Israelis are going to shoot up the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories.
Click to expand...

Nahhhhhhh...

Just a continuation and expansion of the present _Evict-and-Expel_ process that has been underway now for many years...

A process which, according to the Palestinians _own_ propaganda maps, is already fairly close to completion...






Wake me up when you've reversed that process...

Although that might prove a little tricky, considering that it's already the 4th Quarter, you're down 48-0, no time-outs left, and 50 seconds left to play on the game-clock...

Tick... tick... tick...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing complex, Toast...I'm neither Pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist, but I do have a dislike for the extremists on both sides...
> 
> Go back to the 67 armistice lines gain recognition and the war will collapse before the Jihadists take over all countries.
> 
> This conflict has spread well beyond the borders of Palestine, and they are winning the hearts of their people.
> 
> Nothing stops the march of History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to the 67 borders, which BTW were never recognized in the first place, will stop the killing and all the other things I said as well as extremists recognizing the existence of Israel?? What are you talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.
Click to expand...


A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel. 

Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state. 

Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.


Why do you find it so hard to castigate Israel, on things Israel should be castigated about?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to the 67 borders, which BTW were never recognized in the first place, will stop the killing and all the other things I said as well as extremists recognizing the existence of Israel?? What are you talking about
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
Click to expand...


No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find it so hard to castigate Israel, on things Israel should be castigated about?
Click to expand...


Oh Billy, you must think that all the readers are so stupid that they can't see right through you.  I have always said that no country in the world is perfect, including Israel.  However, do you see the killing going on like you see in the other Middle East countries?  Perhaps you feel it is best that you as a Catholic should just close your eyes to all the Catholics who have been and are still being killed there.  If the Jews are not involved, you don't want to waste your time on dead Catholic bodies or wounded and refugee Catholics even though others care what is happening to them.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
Click to expand...


Did he? I must have missed it if so


----------



## Roudy

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
Click to expand...

Hah?  How so? Abbas didn't do JACK, nor can he do. He's not in any leadership position in those countries nor can he influence their decisions. The Jews who were expelled have moved on a long time ago, and now lead successful lives mostly.  They wouldn't go back to those shitholes if you paid them.  No thanks. 

Palestinians?  60 years and still whining and blaming Jews for a predicament only they and their Arab brethren are to blame for.


----------



## Roudy

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find it so hard to castigate Israel, on things Israel should be castigated about?
Click to expand...

How about you start by castigating Palestinians for their savagery, terrorism, and barbarism, Mr. big mouth.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a sense of humor Sally, but sadly you're airhead numero uno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is happening in the Arab awakening is that the people of the region want to kick out all the Dictators kings and sheiks whose corruptions have robbed these people of a decent life...The USA, Israel and the Sheiks have colluded together to keep them in line...
> 
> This is the core of the revolt and it will never be stopped by anyone....
> 
> When the dust clears in 20-30 years the Arab Masses will prosper...that prosperity of the future is a bad omen for Israel whom the people hate because she colluded to keep them down.
Click to expand...







The people behind the revolt are even worse dictators than the ones they are trying to oust. The people see what they are and don't want them, so the new dictators just kill them out of hand. The whole of the M.E will soon turn into one big extremist Islamic shit hole and the world will do nothing when they start dying. When they have killed everyone and find that their supporters are against them in less than 5 years then the blood will start flowing again, only this time it will be that of the extremists and terrorist murderers. The problem is that islam is still living in the 7c, while many muslims have tasted the fruit of modern living and will not want to go back to a backward state of existence.  
 Nothing at all to do with Israel, it is all down to their disgusting violent religious beliefs.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is happening in the Arab awakening is that the people of the region want to kick out all the Dictators kings and sheiks whose corruptions have robbed these people of a decent life...The USA, Israel and the Sheiks have colluded together to keep them in line...
> 
> This is the core of the revolt and it will never be stopped by anyone....
> 
> When the dust clears in 20-30 years the Arab Masses will prosper...that prosperity of the future is a bad omen for Israel whom the people hate because she colluded to keep them down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Pbel, that is why the extremists have claimed that Syria is the stepping stone for the brand new Caiphate.  This is also why you see these Jihadists coming into Syria from all parts of the world.    Since you have had nothing to say about how some of those extremists are pushing the Christians into Dhimmitude in Syria, maybe you, too, are looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.   Have you ever thought that the Musslim masses in the Middle East as well as places like Southeast Asia might prosper if they would stop being so busy murdering those Muslims of different sects as well as those who are non Muslims?  Wouldn't it be better for them to concentrate on education in the 21st century instead of them plotting to kill innocent others.  Perhaps in time (hopefully with my fingers crossed) in the Muslim world, the people will wake up that if you have tolerance in religion and concentrate into pulling your people into the modern world instead of killing, they might be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such nice morality but say nothing about Israeli land thefts or Western Imperialism in the ME that causes this bloodshed...
> 
> Like the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe which threw out all the kings save England, the ME will too achieve this Political development soon...
Click to expand...





 At a cost the proposed caliphate can not afford, the deaths of many hundreds of millions of muslims at the hands of Islamic fundementalists trying to send the world of islam back to the 7c. So they are destined to fail when many muslims leave their homelands and give up islam.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is what causes bloodshed in the ME Pbel, is that what you just said??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes*, as the vanguard to Western Imperialism that gives the Sheiks, kings and dictators their corrupt money and robs the average person a decent living...
> 
> That's why they revolt Toast...
Click to expand...






 So the bloodshed, murders, rapes and violence from 627C.E. till 1900 were all down to Israel. Or was it the commands of a false god and a mentally unstable prophet that caused the bloodshed, murders, rapes and violence from 627 C.E till the present day. The facts speak for themselves in the Islamic world were places with no contact with Israel are embroiled in violent civil wars for the sake of power over islam . 

 IT IS ISLAM AT FAULT AND TO BLAME FOR THE BLOODSHED, ISRAEL IS JUST THE EXCUSE. NOT THAT THE MUSLIMS NEED AN EXCUSE AFTER 1400 YEARS OF VILE PRACTISES.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such nice morality but say nothing about Israeli land thefts or Western Imperialism in the ME that causes this bloodshed...
> 
> Like the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe which threw out all the kings save England, the ME will too achieve this Political development soon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, you are not really fooling anyone, and that is why whatever you say is just fluffed off as being the same old, same old stuff you have been saying for years.  If there were no Jews governing Israel, the Muslims would hate them all the same.  They have hated them since the inception of Islam.  Aris seems to be the one educated in all of this, being brough up in the Middle East.  Ask her about this since she has studied this phenomena for a long time.  I realize you are salivating over the possible fall of Israel, and it is quite obvious that you don't care about the thousands and thousands (even millions) killed in the name of Islam since you can't blame the Jews or America for this.  Do you really think all those suicide and car bombings in Pakistan, for instance, have anything to do with Israel or the U.S. or have they to do with one sect hating the other sect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Sally, when you keep attacking the messenger rather than the message, or fly off on a tangent in Pakistan and dwell on hate rather than Justice by ignoring all UN resolutions and even USA pressure on the occupation, I repeat the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I can understand your frustration and motive.
Click to expand...






 Who is it that refuses to abide by treaties that are binding and do not allow any belligerence. The Oslo accords called on both side to do certain things, Israel complied with the first part and the muslims have refused to comply with their part. 
 The occupation of Palestine is not illegal and this has been proven to you and the other ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS many times. The Geneva conventions state that Israel is legally allowed to occupy the land as a means of defence, and can treat the inhabitants as hostile if they are belligerent. Not a peep about the illegal occupation of the land of Lebanon by the Palestinian terrorists, now why is this


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Sally, when you keep attacking the messenger rather than the message, or fly off on a tangent in Pakistan and dwell on hate rather than Justice by ignoring all UN resolutions and even USA pressure on the occupation, I repeat the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, I can understand your frustration and motive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, Pbel, many of us who have been reading you a long, long time know you and realize that you are only focused on Israel and never have really been interested in what is happening elsewhere no matter how many dead bodies are lying on the ground because of being murdered for their religious beliefs.  You might think you are fooling everyone, but you really aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what I'm focused on pray tell...would my focus change veracity in my posts?
Click to expand...






 It is more that just being focused it is being fixated to the point of uncontrollable hatred that has blinded you to the reality. The fault lies in Islam's 7c mindset and beliefs that allah gave the world to the muslims. The commands he made as if from the muslims false god to "KILL THE JEWS" because they refused to lay down in the dirt and worship him as god.  That is were your fixation and hatred comes from, the false words of a false prophet. If you were not so hateful you would see that the problem is not Israel defending against Islamic terrorism and hate, but the Islamic terrorism and hate.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what I'm focused on pray tell...would my focus change veracity in my posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that a person who is supposedly civilized would also focus on those unfortunate people who are being murdered for their religious beliefs in the Middle East.  It appears that you do not care what happened to them and is still happening.  Anyhow, since you are so hot about the Arab uprisings, why not give us your opinion as to what is going to happen in Morocco?  Do you think that King Mohammed will be able to hold on to his throne or do you think the Islamists will eventually take over there?  In addition, what do you think about the Russian Jihadists now in Syria excuting people?   Don't you think they would have enough to do murdering innocent Russians than to run to Syria to kill people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...
> 
> Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.
> 
> Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab Awakening...
Click to expand...






 So if Isreal is destroyed in the next decade who will you then blame for the problems in islam. Will it be the Christians, or the Hindus, Sikhs, Janes, Buddists and Shinto that are the cause of the problems. The problem is the extremist muslims want ultimate power over all of islam, and they know that democracy is not the way to achieve this. Look at iran that is allegedly a democratic Islamic nation, the elections are for the ayotollahs chosen people and not for the peoples choice. That is Islamic extremist democracy in action and what the arab spring is really all about.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...
> 
> Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.
> 
> Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab wakening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 21st century, Pbel.  I don't think we see Christians killing each other because of their differing religious beliefs.  If you see Catholics killing Protestants or Greek Orthodox, will you let ue know?  Haven't you kept up with what many of the Muslim religious leaders are saying -- that Islam is not compatible with Democracy -- and the people listen to these leaders.  Perhaps you can be the one to convince them to change their minds.  I wonder if Pbel can prove to us from some legitimate site where it is reported that Israel has "colluded" with the dictators to keep the people in line and poor.  Do you have some source for what you are claiming, Pbel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Many activists like myself can read between the lines...
> 
> Beacon Broadside: Middle East*Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East*
> 
> KHALIDI-BrokersOfDeceitAn examination of the failure of the United States as a broker in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, through three key historical moments
> 
> For more than seven decades the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people has raged on with no end in sight, and for much of that time, the United States has been involved as a mediator in the conflict. In this book, acclaimed historian Rashid Khalidi zeroes in on the United States's role as the purported impartial broker in this failed peace process.
> 
> Khalidi closely analyzes three historical moments that illuminate how the United States' involvement has, in fact, thwarted progress toward peace between Israel and Palestine. The first moment he investigates is the "Reagan Plan" of 1982, when Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin refused to accept the Reagan administration's proposal to reframe the Camp David Accords more impartially. The second moment covers the period after the Madrid Peace Conference, from 1991 to 1993, during which negotiations between Israel and Palestine were brokered by the United States until the signing of the secretly negotiated Oslo accords. Finally, Khalidi takes on President Barack Obama's retreat from plans to insist on halting the settlements in the West Bank.
Click to expand...




And you hit the nail on the head when you said activists and then linked to an extremist Islamic author of subversive literature.  It is you and the likes of this author that are deceitful and do not want peace. Peace serves no part in your plans of genocidal conquest of the world in the name of allah and Mohamed, you just want to see blood running in the gutters so you can lap it up.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing complex, toast...i'm neither pro-palestinian or anti-zionist, but i do have a dislike for the extremists on both sides...
> 
> Go back to the 67 armistice lines gain recognition and the war will collapse before the jihadists take over all countries.
> 
> This conflict has spread well beyond the borders of palestine, and they are winning the hearts of their people.
> 
> Nothing stops the march of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> going back to the 67 borders, which btw were never recognized in the first place, will stop the killing and all the other things i said as well as extremists recognizing the existence of israel?? What are you talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...the un has approved those borders by recognizing palestine as a non-member observer state...if peace fails the un will recognize palestine with full status and membership and israel will be further boycotted and censured.
Click to expand...








 how many more times will it take before you stop lying, the un has not approved any borders for palestine because they know they must be negotiated by israel and the plo. The un will never recognise a terrorist entity like palestine, if it did then the un would fold in on itself and be destroyed.   If the palestinians cant agree terms then they will fail to exist in the next 10 years, this is the last chance of peace for the terrorist entity.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Does it matter what was?..."
> 
> 
> 
> Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it._ - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905_
> 
> Israel has tried 'Land for Peace' deals before.
> 
> Those never work out very well.
> 
> I think they've learned their lesson.
> 
> No point in skedaddling back to the 1967 lines, when there will simply be more demands after a brief interlude.
> 
> Bottom line: the Arabs will not be content until they have it all.
> 
> Israel requires ownership and control of the entire region - River to Sea - the white area on the map, below...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in order to have defensible borders that can be sustained for centuries and generations.
> 
> And they are going to get them.
> 
> They've heard the land-for-peace bullshit once too often.
> 
> Can't blame 'em for laughing at such, nowadays.
> 
> That window of opportunity closed quite some time ago.
> 
> Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, the Israelis are not fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest you're beginning to sound like Daffy Duck if you think the Israelis are going to shoot up the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories.
Click to expand...







 They don't need to as the rest of islam will do that job for them, and give the land to Israel as a compensation package. Egypt has declared war on hamas, Jordan has declared war on hamas, Saudi has declared war on hamas. So what chance do the Palestinians have left if the peace talks fail.   This is the fault of the arab spring and why the coalition of Jordan, Saudi, Egypt and Israel will prevail over extremist islam.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he? I must have missed it if so
Click to expand...



PA: No Peace Without Full 'Right of Return'

PA chief Mahmoud Abbas said that the "fate" of Arab refugees must be resolved if a peace treaty is to be achieved with Israel.


By David Lev
First Publish: 11/18/2013, 6:14 PM

At a joint press conference Monday with French President Francois Hollande, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas said that the fate of what he said were 5 million Arab refugees must be resolved if a peace treaty is to be achieved with Israel. That must come in addition to the establishment of a PA state in all of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem.

The official policy of the Palestinian Authority is to demand repatriation for the descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 to their original homes in Israel, thus flooding the Jewish state with Arab refugees and effectively erasing Israel from the map, replacing it with a secular, democratic Palestine.

*In a law approved by the PA parliament in 2008, and signed into law by Abbas, the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, along with compensation for their suffering, is a holy cornerstone of their rights that cannot be negotiated away. There will be no consideration of negotiation on this issue, nor will there be a referendum on it, the law says.*

More here:
PA: No Peace Without Full 'Right of Return' - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
Click to expand...


As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote and so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way, Pbel.  You have always been thought of by many as loco en la cabeza.  So tell us, Pbel, when are you ever going to contribute anything about what is happening to the Middle East in general.  People are being murdered there all the time just because of their religious beliefs.  I guess all those dead people mean nothing to you as long as you have the chance to castigate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find it so hard to castigate Israel, on things Israel should be castigated about?
Click to expand...







 Like what, and try and be realistic on your alleged charges of apartheid and disregard for international law.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter what was? A deal is on the table for peace...The UN has approved those borders by recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state...If Peace fails the UN will recognize Palestine with full status and membership and Israel will be further boycotted and censured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
Click to expand...








over 1 million Jews expelled or murdered from Islamic nations by the muslims, less than 10,000 arabs expelled from Israel is quite a discrepancy. The UN resolutions call on those wishing the return to denounce all violence, terrorism and takeover bids before they will accede to their right of return, up to the present time not one arab has accepted these terms.


----------



## toastman

Sweet_Caroline said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did he? I must have missed it if so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PA: No Peace Without Full 'Right of Return'
> 
> PA chief Mahmoud Abbas said that the "fate" of Arab refugees must be resolved if a peace treaty is to be achieved with Israel.
> 
> 
> By David Lev
> First Publish: 11/18/2013, 6:14 PM
> 
> At a joint press conference Monday with French President Francois Hollande, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas said that the fate of what he said were 5 million Arab refugees must be resolved if a peace treaty is to be achieved with Israel. That must come in addition to the establishment of a PA state in all of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem.
> 
> The official policy of the Palestinian Authority is to demand repatriation for the descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 to their original homes in Israel, thus flooding the Jewish state with Arab refugees and effectively erasing Israel from the map, replacing it with a secular, democratic Palestine.
> 
> *In a law approved by the PA parliament in 2008, and signed into law by Abbas, the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, along with compensation for their suffering, is a holy cornerstone of their rights that cannot be negotiated away. There will be no consideration of negotiation on this issue, nor will there be a referendum on it, the law says.*
> 
> More here:
> PA: No Peace Without Full 'Right of Return' - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News
Click to expand...


Yes, because I'm sure their houses are atill there, vacant and waiting for them to move in 

Either way. RoR is NOT HAPPENING!


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote an so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.
Click to expand...

Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deal was on the Table in 1993 as well... And in 2000... And in 2008.. All of them were REJECTED Pbel.
> 
> Boycotts will do little harm to Israel and they certainly wont force Israel to shrink her territory for yet ANOTHER Muslim Arab state.
> 
> Also, the 67 borders is only some of what they are asking for. They want right of return which would DEFINITELY damage the Jewish State. Then there's release of prisoners post Oslo accords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote an so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.
Click to expand...

Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...

The evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote an so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...
Click to expand...


You are arguing that the sun revolves around the earth. Is it possible that he said it? 
Of course. 
Does the fact that only the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine heard it make it highly likely to be camel crap? 
Of course.
The bottom line remains Abbas admits he has no authority to negotiate away the so-called "right of return."


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote an so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the sun revolves around the earth. Is it possible that he said it?
> Of course.
> Does the fact that only the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine heard it make it highly likely to be camel crap?
> Of course.
> The bottom line remains Abbas admits he has no authority to negotiate away the so-called "right of return."
Click to expand...


You are not looking at the facts...The Israeli Lobby in America controls what happens in the ME...you only need to look that the actions follow the so called Sharon Statement, plus the fact that the thugs persona is all over that statement.

I also have a YouTube video in which Netanyahu tells that "don't worry, America is easily moved..."

That statement may well describe why peace is not possible, because Israel through its American lobby calls the shots for Israel which is not done stealing Arab Lands.

The truth be known!


https://www.google.com/search?q=Net...F-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7NDKB_enUS576

Netanyahu: 'America is a thing you can move very easily' - Blogs



voices.washingtonpost.com/.../netanyahu_america_...*










The Washington Post





Jul 16, 2010 - "I know what America is," Netanyahu told a group of terror victims, ..... Don´t worry about the Americans, we jews control the Americans, and the ...


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it._ - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905_
> 
> Israel has tried 'Land for Peace' deals before.
> 
> Those never work out very well.
> 
> I think they've learned their lesson.
> 
> No point in skedaddling back to the 1967 lines, when there will simply be more demands after a brief interlude.
> 
> Bottom line: the Arabs will not be content until they have it all.
> 
> Israel requires ownership and control of the entire region - River to Sea - the white area on the map, below...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in order to have defensible borders that can be sustained for centuries and generations.
> 
> And they are going to get them.
> 
> They've heard the land-for-peace bullshit once too often.
> 
> Can't blame 'em for laughing at such, nowadays.
> 
> That window of opportunity closed quite some time ago.
> 
> Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, the Israelis are not fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest you're beginning to sound like Daffy Duck if you think the Israelis are going to shoot up the Palestinians out of the Occupied territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need to as the rest of islam will do that job for them, and give the land to Israel as a compensation package. Egypt has declared war on hamas, Jordan has declared war on hamas, Saudi has declared war on hamas. So what chance do the Palestinians have left if the peace talks fail.   This is the fault of the arab spring and why the coalition of Jordan, Saudi, Egypt and Israel will prevail over extremist islam.
Click to expand...


Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Like what, and try and be realistic on your alleged charges of apartheid and disregard for international law.


That's a pretty dumbass question coming from someone who spends all their time making up their own reality.


----------



## Billo_Really

pbel said:


> Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.


What about when Hamas puts in street lights in a Gaza neighborhood, then the IDF comes along later and shoots out the lamps at the top, which group committed the terrorist act?

Israel is guilty of 10 times the incidents Hamas is accused of.

The rockets are war crimes because they are considered "indiscriminant weapons".  If they had guidance systems and were only aimed at military targets, they would be perfectly legal under international law.


----------



## pbel

Billo_Really said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Hamas puts in street lights in a Gaza neighborhood, then the IDF comes along later and shoots out the lamps at the top, which group committed the terrorist act?
> 
> Israel is guilty of 10 times the incidents Hamas is accused of.
> 
> The rockets are war crimes because they are considered "indiscriminant weapons".  If they had guidance systems and were only aimed at military targets, they would be perfectly legal under international law.
Click to expand...


Look at it in a realistic military and humanitarian level...Gaza is tightly knit, innocent people who are not combatants can not escape the death traps....Putting your people at a risk that has no hope of achieving any gain except death is criminal in my view.

Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning._"


Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...

Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...

Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...

Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them... until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...

Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...

That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No massive right of return is proper especially since Sephardic Jews were expelled from Arabic countries. I thought Abbas moderated that claim/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote an so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...
Click to expand...





All your circumstantial evidence is from Islamic sources, so is voided straight away


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, and try and be realistic on your alleged charges of apartheid and disregard for international law.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty dumbass question coming from someone who spends all their time making up their own reality.
Click to expand...






Lost the argument again so resort to personal abuse..............


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, and try and be realistic on your alleged charges of apartheid and disregard for international law.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty dumbass question coming from someone who spends all their time making up their own reality.
Click to expand...

Translation: _I can't think of anything, so I'll just try to deflect attention away from that fact._" Standard-fare at 6th grade junior high Debate Club practice sessions.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Hamas puts in street lights in a Gaza neighborhood, then the IDF comes along later and shoots out the lamps at the top, which group committed the terrorist act?
> 
> Israel is guilty of 10 times the incidents Hamas is accused of.
> 
> The rockets are war crimes because they are considered "indiscriminant weapons".  If they had guidance systems and were only aimed at military targets, they would be perfectly legal under international law.
Click to expand...





How so , give the relevant part of the Geneva conventions that say it is permissible to fire weapons at a sovereign nation without justification. If hamas is allowed to fire weapons at Israel then surely Israel is also allowed to fire at VALID MILITARY TARGETS in gaza. This means that any area that is used for military purposes is a valid MILITARY TARGET. Which you seem to think is against International Law to target rocket launching sites and hamas commanders .


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Hamas puts in street lights in a Gaza neighborhood, then the IDF comes along later and shoots out the lamps at the top, which group committed the terrorist act?
> 
> Israel is guilty of 10 times the incidents Hamas is accused of.
> 
> The rockets are war crimes because they are considered "indiscriminant weapons".  If they had guidance systems and were only aimed at military targets, they would be perfectly legal under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so , give the relevant part of the Geneva conventions that say it is permissible to fire weapons at a sovereign nation without justification. If hamas is allowed to fire weapons at Israel then surely Israel is also allowed to fire at VALID MILITARY TARGETS in gaza. This means that any area that is used for military purposes is a valid MILITARY TARGET. Which you seem to think is against International Law to target rocket launching sites and hamas commanders .
Click to expand...


Welcome to _Little Billy's Amateur-Hour International Law Symposium and Finest Kind Hamas Whorehouse_... no interpretation too self-serving or obtuse or disingenuous.




.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Hamas puts in street lights in a Gaza neighborhood, then the IDF comes along later and shoots out the lamps at the top, which group committed the terrorist act?
> 
> Israel is guilty of 10 times the incidents Hamas is accused of.
> 
> The rockets are war crimes because they are considered "indiscriminant weapons".  If they had guidance systems and were only aimed at military targets, they would be perfectly legal under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at it in a realistic military and humanitarian level...Gaza is tightly knit, innocent people who are not combatants can not escape the death traps....Putting your people at a risk that has no hope of achieving any gain except death is criminal in my view.
> 
> Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning.
Click to expand...





If you look on Google earth you will see that most of gaza is rural land, so there is no reason to use the urban areas to fire the weapons at Israel. The only reason is that the gazan terrorists are cowards and wont fire from the outskirts of the built up areas. They rely on the human shields to protect them.

Abbas is losing everything but his life


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that a person who is supposedly civilized would also focus on those unfortunate people who are being murdered for their religious beliefs in the Middle East.  It appears that you do not care what happened to them and is still happening.  Anyhow, since you are so hot about the Arab uprisings, why not give us your opinion as to what is going to happen in Morocco?  Do you think that King Mohammed will be able to hold on to his throne or do you think the Islamists will eventually take over there?  In addition, what do you think about the Russian Jihadists now in Syria excuting people?   Don't you think they would have enough to do murdering innocent Russians than to run to Syria to kill people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...
> 
> Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.
> 
> Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab Awakening...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if Isreal is destroyed in the next decade who will you then blame for the problems in islam. Will it be the Christians, or the Hindus, Sikhs, Janes, Buddists and Shinto that are the cause of the problems. The problem is the extremist muslims want ultimate power over all of islam, and they know that democracy is not the way to achieve this. Look at iran that is allegedly a democratic Islamic nation, the elections are for the ayotollahs chosen people and not for the peoples choice. That is Islamic extremist democracy in action and what the arab spring is really all about.
Click to expand...


first the saturday then the sunday people......


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with your bogus Ariel Sharon quote an so many of your opinions, there is a wide chasm between what you think and the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All your circumstantial evidence is from Islamic sources, so is voided straight away
Click to expand...


all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All your circumstantial evidence is from Islamic sources, so is voided straight away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
Click to expand...


Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, and try and be realistic on your alleged charges of apartheid and disregard for international law.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty dumbass question coming from someone who spends all their time making up their own reality.
Click to expand...


Hamas Committed War Crimes In November: Report
ibtimes.com/hamas-committed-war-crimes-november-report-965796
By Angelo Young

Hamas as a whole is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., the EU, Canada, Israel and Japan. The militant wing of Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Australia and the UK.
Reuters

Human Rights Watch on Monday accused Palestinian militants in Gaza of war crimes for intentionally targeting Israeli civilians with rockets during last months clashes after Israel assassinated a top Hamas leader on Nov. 14.

Palestinian armed groups made clear in their statements that harming civilians was their aim, said Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watchs Middle East director, in the report based on field interviews with witnesses on both sides. There is simply no legal justification for launching rockets at populated areas.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning._"
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...
> 
> Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...
> 
> Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...
> 
> *Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them...* until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...
> 
> Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...
> 
> That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...
Click to expand...


They do. It is called BDS.

The politicos are being left in the dust.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning._"
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...
> 
> Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...
> 
> Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...
> 
> *Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them...* until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...
> 
> Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...
> 
> That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do. It is called BDS.
> 
> The politicos are being left in the dust.
Click to expand...


I had a cousin from Israel visiting here last week.  He said that BDS has affected a few individuals here and there, but can never really bring a high-tech nation such as Israel to its knees.  Israeli technology is just too valuable to the world.  He himself is a high-tech exec., and he was in NY on a business trip.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning._"
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...
> 
> Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...
> 
> Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...
> 
> *Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them...* until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...
> 
> Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...
> 
> That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do. It is called BDS.
> 
> The politicos are being left in the dust.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning._"
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...
> 
> Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...
> 
> Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...
> 
> *Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them...* until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...
> 
> Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...
> 
> That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do. It is called BDS.
> 
> The politicos are being left in the dust.
Click to expand...


If true, that's pretty sad for the Palestinians


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I have always declared war on Hamas...Those people should be tried as war criminals for shooting rockets and instigating retaliation killing many innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Hamas puts in street lights in a Gaza neighborhood, then the IDF comes along later and shoots out the lamps at the top, which group committed the terrorist act?
> 
> Israel is guilty of 10 times the incidents Hamas is accused of.
> 
> The rockets are war crimes because they are considered "indiscriminant weapons".  If they had guidance systems and were only aimed at military targets, they would be perfectly legal under international law.
Click to expand...

Then there's the matter of shooting said rockets across an international border,regardless if it's at military targets.


----------



## Victory67

Hossfly said:


> Then there's the matter of shooting said rockets across an international border,regardless if it's at military targets.



There is an internationally recognized border between Israel and Gaza?

Where is it?  When did the UN recognize it?


----------



## Hossfly

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the matter of shooting said rockets across an international border,regardless if it's at military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an internationally recognized border between Israel and Gaza?
> 
> Where is it?  When did the UN recognize it?
Click to expand...

Any old borders, Peacock.


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the matter of shooting said rockets across an international border,regardless if it's at military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an internationally recognized border between Israel and Gaza?
> 
> Where is it?  When did the UN recognize it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any old borders, Peacock.
Click to expand...

Vicky's defect is the sickness of moral relativism...

It's OK to shoot rockets from territory controlled by the Palestinians, to the territory controlled by the Israelis, because there is no formal 'border' recognized between the two, which are accepted by both parties, and the outside world...

It doesn't matter that those rockets are being fired indiscriminately at civilians... it only matters that there is no internationally recognized border between the two regions...

His is the kind of little peckerwood that got their asses 'fragged', more often than not...

You can't argue with 'em, and they've always got to have the last word...

Which explains why their kind were often on the receiving end of an M26 Enema...

That tended to clear the mind, wonderously well...


----------



## Victory67

Hossfly said:


> Any old borders, Peacock.



No nation nor international organization recognizes the line between Gaza and Israel as an international border.  Not even Israel, as they control Gaza's airspace and sea.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your circumstantial evidence is from Islamic sources, so is voided straight away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
Click to expand...


That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!

Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



Of course the fake Sharon quote is all over the web -- in all the NeoNazi/KKK anti-Semitic sites which is probably where you first saw it and then you couldn't restrain yourself from using it over and over and over even when it was shown to you that it was fake.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


OMG!!!! Did he really sah that?? Oh the humanity!!! 

What an evil human being!!

*faints*


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the fake Sharon quote is all over the web -- in all the NeoNazi/KKK anti-Semitic sites which is probably where you first saw it and then you couldn't restrain yourself from using it over and over and over even when it was shown to you that it was fake.
Click to expand...


Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...

And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.

Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.



Burying Sharon &#8211; and &#8220;We Jews control America&#8221; | Veterans Today



www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*









Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's &#8220;we Jews control America&#8221; quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...


Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...



www.camera.or...*













Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...





May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying &#8220;. ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.


Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers



answers.yahoo.com &#8250; All Categories &#8250; Politics & Government &#8250; Politics*









Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, &#8220;We control America&#8221; + &#8220;Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote


Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote



www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*












Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...


Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense



rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*












During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...


snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?



msgboard.snopes.com &#8250; ... &#8250; Questionable Quotes Archive*












Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.


snopes.com: Israel Controls America???



msgboard.snopes.com &#8250; snopes.com &#8250; Archived Forums &#8250; Politics Archive*












Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...


Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...



Stormfront - White Nationalist Community &#8250; Stormfront &#8250; General &#8250; Quotations*













Stormfront





Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.


Ariel sharon quotes

1 post

Nov 20, 2003


Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...

5 posts

Jul 17, 2002


Does anyone have a source for this quote

5 posts

Mar 24, 2002


Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America

4 posts

Oct 4, 2001


More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community



We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It



bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*









Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...


Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...



www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*












May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon:&#8221; We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it&#8221;. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...


----------



## Hossfly

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any old borders, Peacock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nation nor international organization recognizes the line between Gaza and Israel as an international border.  Not even Israel, as they control Gaza's airspace and sea.
Click to expand...

They may not recognize any borders or lines but they can't ignore *THE FENCE.*


----------



## toastman

Oh look, Pbel basically just blamed Israel for the Boston Bombings. How pro Palestinian of him LOL


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the fake Sharon quote is all over the web -- in all the NeoNazi/KKK anti-Semitic sites which is probably where you first saw it and then you couldn't restrain yourself from using it over and over and over even when it was shown to you that it was fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> 
> 
> 
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> 
> Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers
> 
> 
> 
> answers.yahoo.com  All Categories  Politics & Government  Politics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, We control America + Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> 
> 
> www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> 
> 
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  ...  Questionable Quotes Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> 
> 
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
> Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
> 
> 
> Ariel sharon quotes
> 
> 1 post
> 
> Nov 20, 2003
> 
> 
> Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Jul 17, 2002
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a source for this quote
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Mar 24, 2002
> 
> 
> Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America
> 
> 4 posts
> 
> Oct 4, 2001
> 
> 
> More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community
> 
> 
> 
> We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It
> 
> 
> 
> bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
Click to expand...


So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the fake Sharon quote is all over the web -- in all the NeoNazi/KKK anti-Semitic sites which is probably where you first saw it and then you couldn't restrain yourself from using it over and over and over even when it was shown to you that it was fake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> 
> 
> 
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> 
> Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers
> 
> 
> 
> answers.yahoo.com  All Categories  Politics & Government  Politics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, We control America + Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> 
> 
> www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> 
> 
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  ...  Questionable Quotes Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> 
> 
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
> Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
> 
> 
> Ariel sharon quotes
> 
> 1 post
> 
> Nov 20, 2003
> 
> 
> Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Jul 17, 2002
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a source for this quote
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Mar 24, 2002
> 
> 
> Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America
> 
> 4 posts
> 
> Oct 4, 2001
> 
> 
> More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community
> 
> 
> 
> We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It
> 
> 
> 
> bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.
Click to expand...


I have used the phrase and have admitted that it was not a quote that could be directly tied to Sharon but in fact America is controlled by the AIPAC lobby at the behest of Israel. Do you deny that plus what Netanyahu expressing that sentiment on tape?

Let's face I Sally, you're a script reader for Zionism, nothing more.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Lost the argument again so resort to personal abuse..............


Wrong again.  I was commenting on what you do, not you personally.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Translation: _I can't think of anything, so I'll just try to deflect attention away from that fact._" Standard-fare at 6th grade junior high Debate Club practice sessions.


I can think of a lot of things, but 
why explain the virtues of Judaism, to a Nazi?
why talk about the intelligence of African-American's, to a member of the KKK?
why explain the quadratic equation, to someone who flunked 3rd grade?​So why explain the reality of international law, to someone who constantly makes up their own?


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> 
> 
> 
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> 
> Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers
> 
> 
> 
> answers.yahoo.com  All Categories  Politics & Government  Politics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, We control America + Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> 
> 
> www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> 
> 
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  ...  Questionable Quotes Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> 
> 
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
> Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
> 
> 
> Ariel sharon quotes
> 
> 1 post
> 
> Nov 20, 2003
> 
> 
> Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Jul 17, 2002
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a source for this quote
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Mar 24, 2002
> 
> 
> Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America
> 
> 4 posts
> 
> Oct 4, 2001
> 
> 
> More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community
> 
> 
> 
> We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It
> 
> 
> 
> bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have used the phrase and have admitted that it was not a quote that could be directly tied to Sharon but in fact America is controlled by the AIPAC lobby at the behest of Israel. Do you deny that plus what Netanyahu expressing that sentiment on tape?
> 
> Let's face I Sally, you're a script reader for Zionism, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Let's face it, Pbel.  You are a script reader for anti-Semites, nothing more, nothing less -- no matter how much you try to deny it.  And, you had used that quote even after you were told it was fake, and you never admitted that it was not a real quote.  You can believe all you want to that AIPAC controls America; and I, on the other hand, am free to think it is a bunch of baloney.


----------



## RoccoR

​Victory67,  _et al,_

Well, I don't think this is quite accurate.



Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any old borders, Peacock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nation nor international organization recognizes the line between Gaza and Israel as an international border.  Not even Israel, as they control Gaza's airspace and sea.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				PLO/PA The Borders of Palestine said:
			
		

> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the *internationally-recognized border* between Israel and the oPt.
> 
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> 
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> *3. International Law*
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that [a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calls for the [w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
> 
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> 
> *4. Our Position*
> 
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:​
> Borders:
> 
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​
> *SOURCE:* PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)



*(COMMENT)*

Most of the pro-Palestinians _(particularly the Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ get this wrong.  While I can cite any number of sources that speak to the "International" recognition of the 1967 borders, I find it best to use the official position held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people and engaged in the Peace Talks.

There are several pro-Palestinian contributors to the discussion that hold to the HAMAS position, and the pre-1988 PLO position that the entire territory of the former Mandate to Palestine, less Jordan, is rightfully Palestinian an is indivisible.  But that would not be the correct political position to hold today.  Now anything is negotiable when it comes to Peace Treaty considerations.  But the Israelis have not reach a Treaty settlement with the Palestinians.

*(SIDEBAR)*

As a sidebar discussion are the borders established by the Egyptians and the Jordanians in the Peace Treaties with Israel.  You will note that the ICJ Opinion did not take either Treaty into account.  That is because the ICJ Opinion was not a court case in which both sides of the complaint were represented.  Nor did the ICJ Opinion take into account the impact of the Oslo Accords, and the negotiation status the accord assigns the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...
Click to expand...


There's plenty of camel crap all over the web, PBel, and just a few posts away you *claim* to admit full knowledge of the quote's bogus nature.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon *reportedly* turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like IslamRadio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have used the phrase and have admitted that it was not a quote that could be directly tied to Sharon but in fact America is controlled by the AIPAC lobby at the behest of Israel. Do you deny that plus what Netanyahu expressing that sentiment on tape?
> 
> Let's face I Sally, you're a script reader for Zionism, nothing more.
Click to expand...


So you use that bogus quote, mysteriously heard only by the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine, which *claimed* as its source an Israeli radio Kol Yisrael (which denied it) broadcast  to "prove" that Israel controls America. As further "proof" you use links from Stormfront, VeteransToday and IntifadaPalestine, none of whom ever heard it. 
How convenient.


----------



## Phoenall

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to look at this mess like a Political Scientist, Sally...Christian Society had many religious wars in the middle ages...almost all societies have stupid religious wars...
> 
> Islam has not developed into democracies mainly because the ruling Sheiks exploited the wealth of their nations with corruption...All these revolts are about them and secondly Israel because she has colluded with the Dictators to keep them in line and poor.
> 
> Political evolutionary pressure has caused the Arab Awakening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if Isreal is destroyed in the next decade who will you then blame for the problems in islam. Will it be the Christians, or the Hindus, Sikhs, Janes, Buddists and Shinto that are the cause of the problems. The problem is the extremist muslims want ultimate power over all of islam, and they know that democracy is not the way to achieve this. Look at iran that is allegedly a democratic Islamic nation, the elections are for the ayotollahs chosen people and not for the peoples choice. That is Islamic extremist democracy in action and what the arab spring is really all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> first the saturday then the sunday people......
Click to expand...





 But never the Friday people..............


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon undoubtedly said that to Peres...is there prima facie proof? No...Is there circumstantial evidence? Yes, tons of it...Just look at the US Congress which dances to the AIPAC looney tunes and the money spent or read the Walt/ Mearsheimer study...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All your circumstantial evidence is from Islamic sources, so is voided straight away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
Click to expand...






Once again you prove that you are losing the argument by resorting to personal abuse.

 Yes I can and have linked all your comments to Islamic sources, you are as bad as the child who uses facebook  pages to support his failed arguments.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Fatah is successful in the world because Abbas offers peace, and he is winning._"
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...
> 
> Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...
> 
> Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...
> 
> *Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them...* until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...
> 
> Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...
> 
> That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do. It is called BDS.
> 
> The politicos are being left in the dust.
Click to expand...





 And BDS is illegal in all countries with civil rights laws as it targets only Jews, which is racism. Most European countries have used their anti semitic racism laws to warn of BDS activists and have even arrested some of their leaders and put them in prison.


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Fatah lost the last general election and then refused to stand down, so that Hamas broke off with them...
> 
> Now that Abbas is offering peace, all you have to do is to convince the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who vigorously deny that Abbas is speaking for them when he offers peace...
> 
> Oh, and somebody should probably check-in with Hamas, as well, to see if they're on-board with Abbas on this...
> 
> *Bottom line... until the Palestinians have representation that speaks for all of them...* until they stop squabbling amongst themselves...
> 
> Representations of peace by one side or the other are worthless, if the rest of that bunch isn't on-board...
> 
> That doesn't look like 'winning', to me... only the side that is foaming at the mouth the least... and that is the Hope du Jour, to eventually speak for all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do. It is called BDS.
> 
> The politicos are being left in the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a cousin from Israel visiting here last week.  He said that BDS has affected a few individuals here and there, but can never really bring a high-tech nation such as Israel to its knees.  Israeli technology is just too valuable to the world.  He himself is a high-tech exec., and he was in NY on a business trip.
Click to expand...






 The BDS movement are using Israeli equipment produced in the west bank to produce their web pages.   Now will they stop doing this and try and find an alternative or ignore their HYPOCRICY


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the matter of shooting said rockets across an international border,regardless if it's at military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an internationally recognized border between Israel and Gaza?
> 
> Where is it?  When did the UN recognize it?
Click to expand...





When it was agreed between Israel and Egypt in their peace talks. Then again when Israel complied with Oslo and left gaza completely. That is when the world recognised the borders, and when Israel closed theirs to traffic out of gaza.

 Don't you know anything child


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any old borders, Peacock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nation nor international organization recognizes the line between Gaza and Israel as an international border.  Not even Israel, as they control Gaza's airspace and sea.
Click to expand...





 What has a blockade to do with recognition of borders you silly child. The borders are defined if you bother to look on google earth, and Israel control them with an iron fist


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your circumstantial evidence is from Islamic sources, so is voided straight away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you prove that you are losing the argument by resorting to personal abuse.
> 
> Yes I can and have linked all your comments to Islamic sources, you are as bad as the child who uses facebook  pages to support his failed arguments.
Click to expand...


Prove and provide those links. liar.


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have used the phrase and have admitted that it was not a quote that could be directly tied to Sharon but in fact America is controlled by the AIPAC lobby at the behest of Israel. Do you deny that plus what Netanyahu expressing that sentiment on tape?
> 
> Let's face I Sally, you're a script reader for Zionism, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you use that bogus quote, mysteriously heard only by the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine, which *claimed* as its source an Israeli radio Kol Yisrael (which denied it) broadcast  to "prove" that Israel controls America. As further "proof" you use links from Stormfront, VeteransToday and IntifadaPalestine, none of whom ever heard it.
> How convenient.
Click to expand...


I showed a bunch of links that talk about the quote...Look at AIPAC it certainly controls ME votes in Congress...Netanyahu on tape from YouTube saying exactly what Sharon said... 

You fool no one...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...








So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew.

 Another massive fail by you


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew.
> 
> Another massive fail by you
Click to expand...


I know I sometimes remiss and call you a liar and an idiot and I do whole heartily apologize...The translation of the point of this tape is clearly on the masthead....

There is one with English sub-titles but I bet you speak Hebrew.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the fake Sharon quote is all over the web -- in all the NeoNazi/KKK anti-Semitic sites which is probably where you first saw it and then you couldn't restrain yourself from using it over and over and over even when it was shown to you that it was fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> 
> 
> 
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> 
> Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers
> 
> 
> 
> answers.yahoo.com  All Categories  Politics & Government  Politics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, We control America + Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> 
> 
> www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> 
> 
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  ...  Questionable Quotes Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> 
> 
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
> Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
> 
> 
> Ariel sharon quotes
> 
> 1 post
> 
> Nov 20, 2003
> 
> 
> Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Jul 17, 2002
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a source for this quote
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Mar 24, 2002
> 
> 
> Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America
> 
> 4 posts
> 
> Oct 4, 2001
> 
> 
> More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community
> 
> 
> 
> We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It
> 
> 
> 
> bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
Click to expand...





All sourced from the same place an ISLAMONAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED source.


 Yet another massive fail.................


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> 
> 
> 
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> 
> Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers
> 
> 
> 
> answers.yahoo.com  All Categories  Politics & Government  Politics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, We control America + Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> 
> 
> www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> 
> 
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  ...  Questionable Quotes Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> 
> 
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
> Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
> 
> 
> Ariel sharon quotes
> 
> 1 post
> 
> Nov 20, 2003
> 
> 
> Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Jul 17, 2002
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a source for this quote
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Mar 24, 2002
> 
> 
> Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America
> 
> 4 posts
> 
> Oct 4, 2001
> 
> 
> More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community
> 
> 
> 
> We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It
> 
> 
> 
> bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have used the phrase and have admitted that it was not a quote that could be directly tied to Sharon but in fact America is controlled by the AIPAC lobby at the behest of Israel. Do you deny that plus what Netanyahu expressing that sentiment on tape?
> 
> Let's face I Sally, you're a script reader for Zionism, nothing more.
Click to expand...





If that was so then America would have destroyed gaza and the west bank in 1967, and would not have brokered any peace deals. What you are spouting is just ISLAMONAZI BLOOD LIBELS and LIES


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lost the argument again so resort to personal abuse..............
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I was commenting on what you do, not you personally.
Click to expand...






As I said personal abuse because you have lost the argument.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: _I can't think of anything, so I'll just try to deflect attention away from that fact._" Standard-fare at 6th grade junior high Debate Club practice sessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of a lot of things, but
> why explain the virtues of Judaism, to a Nazi?
> why talk about the intelligence of African-American's, to a member of the KKK?
> why explain the quadratic equation, to someone who flunked 3rd grade?​So why explain the reality of international law, to someone who constantly makes up their own?
Click to expand...






Like you do you mean, the Law is very clear on what and what not can be done in occupied land. Israel complies with the letter of the law all the time, unlike the Palestinians who flout International Law all the time. Just look at the warheads used on the qassam rockets that contain chemical and biological substances to cause much pain and death.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you prove that you are losing the argument by resorting to personal abuse.
> 
> Yes I can and have linked all your comments to Islamic sources, you are as bad as the child who uses facebook  pages to support his failed arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove and provide those links. liar.
Click to expand...







Just look at this board and go back in history, there you will see the proof you so desire.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew.
> 
> Another massive fail by you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I sometimes remiss and call you a liar and an idiot and I do whole heartily apologize...The translation of the point of this tape is clearly on the masthead....
> 
> There is one with English sub-titles but I bet you speak Hebrew.
Click to expand...






 No just English being English what would you expect.    Now is this any different to your claims about MEMRI, and that the translation is fake. It is from a PRO PALESTINIAN SOURCE after all............


 Another big fail by you


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ​Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, I don't think this is quite accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any old borders, Peacock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nation nor international organization recognizes the line between Gaza and Israel as an international border.  Not even Israel, as they control Gaza's airspace and sea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO/PA The Borders of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Key Facts*
> 
> 
> The 1967 border is the *internationally-recognized border* between Israel and the oPt.
> 
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> 
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> *3. International Law*
> 
> 
> Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (1945), requires that [a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calls for the [w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
> 
> The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion, concluded that Israel in breach of international law as an occupying power by building its Wall and settlements inside the oPt.
> 
> *4. Our Position*
> 
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:​
> Borders:
> 
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.​
> *SOURCE:* PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Most of the pro-Palestinians _(particularly the Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ get this wrong.  While I can cite any number of sources that speak to the "International" recognition of the 1967 borders,* I find it best to use the official position held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people* and engaged in the Peace Talks.
> 
> There are several pro-Palestinian contributors to the discussion that *hold to the HAMAS position, and the pre-1988 PLO position that the entire territory of the former Mandate to Palestine, less Jordan, is rightfully Palestinian an is indivisible.*  But that would not be the correct political position to hold today.  Now anything is negotiable when it comes to Peace Treaty considerations.  But the Israelis have not reach a Treaty settlement with the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

The PLO is expressing a political opinion.

Hamas is expressing the legal status.



> *(SIDEBAR)*
> 
> As a sidebar discussion are the borders established by the Egyptians and the Jordanians in the Peace Treaties with Israel.  You will note that the ICJ Opinion did not take either Treaty into account.  That is because the ICJ Opinion was not a court case in which both sides of the complaint were represented.  Nor did the ICJ Opinion take into account the impact of the Oslo Accords, and the negotiation status the accord assigns the issue.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Victory67,  _et al,_
> 
> Well, I don't think this is quite accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No nation nor international organization recognizes the line between Gaza and Israel as an international border.  Not even Israel, as they control Gaza's airspace and sea.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Most of the pro-Palestinians _(particularly the Jihadist and Fedayeen)_ get this wrong.  While I can cite any number of sources that speak to the "International" recognition of the 1967 borders,* I find it best to use the official position held by the sole representative of the Palestinian people* and engaged in the Peace Talks.
> 
> There are several pro-Palestinian contributors to the discussion that *hold to the HAMAS position, and the pre-1988 PLO position that the entire territory of the former Mandate to Palestine, less Jordan, is rightfully Palestinian an is indivisible.*  But that would not be the correct political position to hold today.  Now anything is negotiable when it comes to Peace Treaty considerations.  But the Israelis have not reach a Treaty settlement with the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The PLO is expressing a political opinion.
> 
> Hamas is expressing the legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(SIDEBAR)*
> 
> As a sidebar discussion are the borders established by the Egyptians and the Jordanians in the Peace Treaties with Israel.  You will note that the ICJ Opinion did not take either Treaty into account.  That is because the ICJ Opinion was not a court case in which both sides of the complaint were represented.  Nor did the ICJ Opinion take into account the impact of the Oslo Accords, and the negotiation status the accord assigns the issue.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






Wrong way round the land that you call Palestine was originally promised to the Jews, so that is the legal position.

Hamas is stating a personal opinion that they have been told is not on the cards and is against the UN charter


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Wrong way round the land that you call Palestine was originally promised to the Jews, so that is the legal position.
> 
> Hamas is stating a personal opinion that they have been told is not on the cards and is against the UN charter



There was never any law or agreement that promised all of the land of Palestine, to the Jews and the Jews alone.

This is an old Nazionist claim.


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Like you do you mean, the Law is very clear on what and what not can be done in occupied land. Israel complies with the letter of the law all the time, unlike the Palestinians who flout International Law all the time. Just look at the warheads used on the qassam rockets that contain chemical and biological substances to cause much pain and death.



Nazionists on this board like you have already claimed that international laws are meaningless.

The Palestinians rule Gaza, and the world recognizes the right to resist occupation.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_




P F Tinmore said:


> The PLO is expressing a political opinion.
> 
> Hamas is expressing the legal status.


*(COMMENT)*

All treaties, conventions, agreements, accords and alike are political positions with a legal status.

HAMAS doesn't express legal status, but takes-up a plaintiffs position and attempts to pass it off as something factual.

For instance, it is incorrect to say that the State of Israel occupied any portion of the State of Palestine.  In 1967, there was no State of Palestine.


In the West Bank, Israel occupied sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, annex in 1950.  The people were not Palestinian, they were Jordanian.  In 1994, the Hashemite Kingdom entered into a treaty establishing the new international boundary between Israel and Jordan; reference Article 3 and Annex I.  Please note that there is no break in the continuity of the demarcation, in that it is a continuous boundary between Israel and Jordan, with no prejudice concerning the territory or the people.
Similarly,

In 1979, Egypt and Israel the Peace Treaty established "the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable;" in accordance with Article II and Clause 3 of Article III.
The status of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip changed in regards to the initial occupation of the territories.  They were territories under the control of other Arab States (Egypt and Jordan) at the the time they were placed under Israeli occupation in 1967.  The two treaties, in effect, relinquished the control of those two territories to Israel through the mutually agreed upon international boundaries.

*(SIDEBAR)*

Disputes concerning these two treaties, like other international disputes, should be 
settled by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.  Otherwise:


Under Article 26 _Pacta Sunt Servanda_ - 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, these treaties are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Under Article 27 _"Internal Law and Observance of Treaties"_ - 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, the parties to these two treaties may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

While the Palestinians may have standing for a complaint, it is not at all a slam-dunk case that the Palestinians have sovereignty, violated by any aspect of Israel behavior.  It should be noted that the International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004 Advisory Opinion(full text included) refused to consider any threats presented or demonstrated by the Palestinians.  Additionally, the case was based entirely upon the complainants perspective.  The court did not consider the implication of the Treaty on the sovereignty, but instead, applied it to the freedom of movement issue.

It is understood that the Settlement Issue under the permanent status of negotiation is a very weak point on the Israeli side.  And that the expansion of settlements in the Occupied territories is (_Prima facie_) cause for complaint, it does not overshadow the scope and nature of the security threat Palestinians present to Israeli Sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong way round the land that you call Palestine was originally promised to the Jews, so that is the legal position.
> 
> Hamas is stating a personal opinion that they have been told is not on the cards and is against the UN charter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never any law or agreement that promised all of the land of Palestine, to the Jews and the Jews alone.
> 
> This is an old Nazionist claim.
Click to expand...





 Wrong again child it is an historical fact as shown here

Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights







The Origin and Nature of the Mandate for Palestine 

The Mandate for Palestine, an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to *settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.*The* legally binding document *was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandates terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5


----------



## Victory67

Phoenall said:


> Wrong again child it is an historical fact as shown here
> 
> Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Origin and Nature of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine, an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to *settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.*The* legally binding document *was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandates terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5



You live in a fantasy land.

The Mandate for Palestine, is long dead.

The San Remo Conference and Balfour Declaration, are long dead.

The rights and privelages in these treaties, are dead.


But if you want to suggest they are all alive, then Israel shall be hauled before The Hague for violating all of these treaties, in their disregard for non-Jewish rights in Palestine.

God you're a stupid Nazionist!!!!


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like you do you mean, the Law is very clear on what and what not can be done in occupied land. Israel complies with the letter of the law all the time, unlike the Palestinians who flout International Law all the time. Just look at the warheads used on the qassam rockets that contain chemical and biological substances to cause much pain and death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazionists on this board like you have already claimed that international laws are meaningless.
> 
> The Palestinians rule Gaza, and the world recognizes the right to resist occupation.
Click to expand...





 Not by firing illegal weapons at Israeli civilians and children, which is why hamas is now  branded a terrorist entity by most nations. But technically they are not occupied as the ICJ has said, so they are not right to target Israelis.

 Very soon the arab league will take control and wipe out hamas and fatah leaving the normal Palestinians to sit down and talk peace.


----------



## Roudy

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again child it is an historical fact as shown here
> 
> Mandate For Palestine - The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Origin and Nature of the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine, an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to *settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.*The* legally binding document *was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandates terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live in a fantasy land.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine, is long dead.
> 
> The San Remo Conference and Balfour Declaration, are long dead.
> 
> The rights and privelages in these treaties, are dead.
> 
> 
> But if you want to suggest they are all alive, then Israel shall be hauled before The Hague for violating all of these treaties, in their disregard for non-Jewish rights in Palestine.
> 
> God you're a stupid Nazionist!!!!
Click to expand...

Hee hee hee. Arab delusional thinking. 

 And why are those things dead and not the stupid fraudulent whiney claims of the Arabs, AFTER they attacked Israel and are responsible for the consequences thereof?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, those who have seen you post for years have seen you use the fake quote about Sheron many times.  You might not use Islamic sites which no doubt also report on this fake quote, but there are plenty of NeoNazi and other anti-Semitic sites which also report on this fake quote.  I don't think you just pulled this fake quote out of the thin air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dLTOd3V-Y]Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew. Another massive fail by you
Click to expand...



Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'

A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama. 

In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -- who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded -- speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process. 

As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."

He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew. Another massive fail by you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'
> 
> A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama.
> 
> In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -- who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded -- speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process.
> 
> As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."
> 
> He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:
Click to expand...

That was then. This is now.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That quote is all over the Web...Here is a video by Netanyahu saying the same thing...The Internet is exposing the truth!
> 
> Mangia.Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way...It's Easily Moved' - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew. Another massive fail by you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'
> 
> A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama.
> 
> In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -- who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded -- speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process.
> 
> As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."
> 
> He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:
Click to expand...





 That does not mean that Israel has America in its pocket, it just means that they which strings to pull to get a desired effect. Just as America knows which strings to pull to lead Israel to a different solution


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were is the interpretation of the video, not everyone speaks Hebrew. Another massive fail by you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'
> 
> A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama.
> 
> In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -- who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded -- speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process.
> 
> As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."
> 
> He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean that Israel has America in its pocket, it just means that they which strings to pull to get a desired effect. Just as America knows which strings to pull to lead Israel to a different solution
Click to expand...


The back tracking of a Zionist soldier caught with his hand in the cookie jar: Phoenall...



N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story - POLITICO.com

Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats traditional base among Jews.

*One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, were in trouble.*


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room_..."


The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.

The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.

Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?

Pfffffttt...

Jealous?


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room_..."
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
> 
> Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
> 
> Pfffffttt...
> 
> Jealous?
Click to expand...


Gawd you're becoming a juvenile  cheerleader...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room_..."
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
> 
> Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
> 
> Pfffffttt...
> 
> Jealous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd you're becoming a juvenile  cheerleader...
Click to expand...

Wassa madda, pbel?

Somebody let a little hot air out of your pontificating about AIPAC?

Better a juvenile cheerleader than a fifth columnist for the Bad Guys.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
> 
> Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
> 
> Pfffffttt...
> 
> Jealous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd you're becoming a juvenile  cheerleader...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wassa madda, pbel?
> 
> Somebody let a little hot air out of your pontificating about AIPAC?
> 
> Better a juvenile cheerleader than a fifth columnist for the Bad Guys.
Click to expand...


Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.

America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu In 2001: 'America Is A Thing You Can Move Very Easily'
> 
> A newly released video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could add some additional strain to the sometimes tense relationship between him and President Obama.
> 
> In the video, which is from 2001, Netanyahu -- who reportedly did not know his speech was being recorded -- speaks frankly in Hebrew about relations with the Clinton White House and the peace process.
> 
> As noted in Haaretz, Netanyahu seems to boast of his knowledge of the US by saying, "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."
> 
> He also boasts of manipulating the U.S. in the ongoing peace process, as the Washington Post points out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean that Israel has America in its pocket, it just means that they which strings to pull to get a desired effect. Just as America knows which strings to pull to lead Israel to a different solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The back tracking of a Zionist soldier caught with his hand in the cookie jar: Phoenall...
> 
> 
> 
> N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story - POLITICO.com
> 
> Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats traditional base among Jews.
> 
> *One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, were in trouble.*
Click to expand...







 So when was it they, AIPAC, forced the USA to take action against Syria and Assad. Did it happen in your fantasy world, or was it on the 5th plane of existence. If there has been no ass kicking then we can safely say THAT YOU ARE A LYING POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd you're becoming a juvenile  cheerleader...
> 
> 
> 
> Wassa madda, pbel?
> 
> Somebody let a little hot air out of your pontificating about AIPAC?
> 
> Better a juvenile cheerleader than a fifth columnist for the Bad Guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.
Click to expand...






Both History and demographics have failed to make any inroads in 66 years. The muslims have always outnumbered the Jews by at least 100 to 1 , and have failed to win any decisive victories in the last 66 years. Egypt and Jordan have realised this and made peace with Israel, and are now prospering like never before. So much so that Egypt are asking Israel for help against hamas and the muslim brotherhood, Jordan is asking Israel to patrol its eastern border while they deal with the problem of Syria. Now even Saudi is seeing the sense in having Israel as a friend and is talking of recognition.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> "..._Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out_..."


That is far from the impression that one gets when reading your posts over an extended period of time, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.



> "..._But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second_..."


Nonsense. My loyalties and their priority are: God, Family and Country - and my country is the United States of America. I volunteered and served my country in wartime (non-combat role) and routinely advocate for her best interests in my own real-world interactions.

I am merely one of the vast numbers of Americans who (1) believe that friendship and alliance with Israel is both strategically and tactically advantageous to the United States, (2) understand the deep spiritual connection between Judaism and Christianity and Western culture, (3) are proud of America's commitment to helping the Jews reclaim their ancestral and spiritual homeland and to recover from the Holocaust and (4) realize that disengaging from Israel means that Radical Islam (including the 9-11 terrorists) has won - allowing them to dictate to the United States, whom it may befriend, and whom it may form alliances with, and whom it may not.

But unless Israel turns on the United States, I applaud our ongoing and strong support for Israel, and will continue to counterpoint those who advocate for Palestinian interests, or otherwise for disengaging from our friend and ally.



> "..._America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own._"


Thank you for your opinion on the subject.


----------



## Roudy

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room_..."
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in planning.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in preparations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in strategy.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in tactics.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in war.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in peace.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in public relations.
> 
> The Jews outclassed the Muslims in politics.
> 
> Is it any surprise that the Jews outclassed the Muslims in lobbying?
> 
> Pfffffttt...
> 
> Jealous?
Click to expand...

Funny part is Muslims keep coming back for more outclassing. Must be that low learning curve.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

This, unfortunately, is an example and extension of the "It is All About ME, ME, ME!" attitude.   It is extremely common in the Narcissistic Personality of the Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian persona (PpPp).

There are a number of reasons why America should back away from becoming involved in attempting to drive a political solution to the Middle East dilemma _(the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)_; yet still, support the protection of the Jewish State.  But the "It is all about Me" attitude is not one of the reasons.

Nor is pure nationalism _(a single-minded focus, loyalty and devotion to a America)_ --- _what's good for America is good for us, and forget about the rest_ --- the right posture to assume.



pbel said:


> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether or not Israel _(or the Palestinian for that matter)_ is a good neighbor, friend, or ally to America is as unimportant to the issues at hand.  Nor is it important that America receive an immediate, short-term, benefit from its involvement, of any consequence.  What is important is the maintenance of the original ideals behind the promotion and establishment of the Jewish State.  That is, the preservation of a society and culture of a people that has been oppressed down through the ages; the desire to achieve Jewish political independence, with a separate identity and culture but had no state of their own --- against --- a wave of incessant and excessive Arab Nationalism, and its fanatically devotion to Jihad and its self-interests, often associated with a grandiose sense of self-importance, and diametrically opposed to the preservation effort.  The PpPp has a sense of entitlement --- unreasonable expectations --- of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with uniquely Arab expectations.  The PpPp is totally lacking in any form of empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the aspirations and needs of other cultures; preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, and brilliance --- attributes they consistently fail to demonstrate or achieve in any meaningful way, shape or form.

The PpPp is often heard to cry "genocide!"  Yet little is it remembered that it was the PpPp that "made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition [GA/RES/181(II)]. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."

The PpPp is often heard to claim "apartheid!"  Yet little is it remembered that the  Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Ambassador to the United States (Maen Areikat) said "that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Israelis."

The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!"  Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. "Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities."  The following day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the PpPp in defying Resolution 181(II) of the UN.

Even today, as HAMAS Ministry of Education _(under Article 15 of the Covenant - "The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty")_, where "Jihad" is expressed as an individual duty of every Moslem, 



			
				Hamas objects to UN human rights book in schools said:
			
		

> GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP)  Gaza's Hamas authorities have blocked a U.N. refugee agency from introducing textbooks promoting human rights into local schools, saying it ignores Palestinian cultural mores and focuses too heavily on "peaceful" means of conflict resolution.
> 
> Motesem al-Minawi, spokesman for the Hamas-run Education Ministry, said Thursday that the government believes the curriculum does not match the "ideology and philosophy" of the local population.
> 
> But perhaps worst of all, the books focused on peaceful resistance as the only way of achieving freedom and independence. The entire eighth grade curriculum, Al-Minawi lamented, is not dedicated to human rights but to domesticate the psyche of the Palestinian pupil, fostering negative feelings toward armed resistance.



The PpPp is diametrically opposed the the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered (A/RES/25/2625).  Instead they suggest that there is some legitimacy in "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." 

Yes, it is important for Americans not to get all tied-up in the bantering of the day and remember the basics of the struggle.  The PpPp believe that the very documents that the Jewish People followed as a guide - The Partition of Palestine in 1947 [GA/RES/181(II)], and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  And that the armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  And many of the outspoken PpPp see JIHAD! as the only true solution.  "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."  (Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant)

Yes, it is important for Americans to understand the scope and nature of the PpPp and the morality for which they stand.

Yes, the Israelis are not perfect.  But in saying that, there is a huge magnitude in the difference between the Israeli and the PpPp.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd you're becoming a juvenile  cheerleader...
> 
> 
> 
> Wassa madda, pbel?
> 
> Somebody let a little hot air out of your pontificating about AIPAC?
> 
> Better a juvenile cheerleader than a fifth columnist for the Bad Guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.
Click to expand...


Isnt it funny Pbel that anyone who supports Israel, you make them out to be an Israel firster??
Kondor is. It Jewish or Israel and hes not even a Christian Zionist, he just sees the conflict for what it is, which is something pro Palestinians cant.


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This, unfortunately, is an example and extension of the "It is All About ME, ME, ME!" attitude.   It is extremely common in the Narcissistic Personality of the Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian persona (PpPp).
> 
> There are a number of reasons why America should back away from becoming involved in attempting to drive a political solution to the Middle East dilemma _(the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)_; yet still, support the protection of the Jewish State.  But the "It is all about Me" attitude is not one of the reasons.
> 
> Nor is pure nationalism _(a single-minded focus, loyalty and devotion to a America)_ --- _what's good for America is good for us, and forget about the rest_ --- the right posture to assume.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether or not Israel _(or the Palestinian for that matter)_ is a good neighbor, friend, or ally to America is as unimportant to the issues at hand.  Nor is it important that America receive an immediate, short-term, benefit from its involvement, of any consequence.  What is important is the maintenance of the original ideals behind the promotion and establishment of the Jewish State.  That is, the preservation of a society and culture of a people that has been oppressed down through the ages; the desire to achieve Jewish political independence, with a separate identity and culture but had no state of their own --- against --- a wave of incessant and excessive Arab Nationalism, and its fanatically devotion to Jihad and its self-interests, often associated with a grandiose sense of self-importance, and diametrically opposed to the preservation effort.  The PpPp has a sense of entitlement --- unreasonable expectations --- of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with uniquely Arab expectations.  The PpPp is totally lacking in any form of empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the aspirations and needs of other cultures; preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, and brilliance --- attributes they consistently fail to demonstrate or achieve in any meaningful way, shape or form.
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to cry "genocide!"  Yet little is it remembered that it was the PpPp that "made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition [GA/RES/181(II)]. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to claim "apartheid!"  Yet little is it remembered that the  Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Ambassador to the United States (Maen Areikat) said "that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Israelis."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!"  Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. "Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities."  The following day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the PpPp in defying Resolution 181(II) of the UN.
> 
> Even today, as HAMAS Ministry of Education _(under Article 15 of the Covenant - "The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty")_, where "Jihad" is expressed as an individual duty of every Moslem,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas objects to UN human rights book in schools said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP)  Gaza's Hamas authorities have blocked a U.N. refugee agency from introducing textbooks promoting human rights into local schools, saying it ignores Palestinian cultural mores and focuses too heavily on "peaceful" means of conflict resolution.
> 
> Motesem al-Minawi, spokesman for the Hamas-run Education Ministry, said Thursday that the government believes the curriculum does not match the "ideology and philosophy" of the local population.
> 
> But perhaps worst of all, the books focused on peaceful resistance as the only way of achieving freedom and independence. The entire eighth grade curriculum, Al-Minawi lamented, is not dedicated to human rights but to domesticate the psyche of the Palestinian pupil, fostering negative feelings toward armed resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PpPp is diametrically opposed the the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered (A/RES/25/2625).  Instead they suggest that there is some legitimacy in "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans not to get all tied-up in the bantering of the day and remember the basics of the struggle.  The PpPp believe that the very documents that the Jewish People followed as a guide - The Partition of Palestine in 1947 [GA/RES/181(II)], and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  And that the armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  And many of the outspoken PpPp see JIHAD! as the only true solution.  "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."  (Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant)
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans to understand the scope and nature of the PpPp and the morality for which they stand.
> 
> Yes, the Israelis are not perfect.  But in saying that, there is a huge magnitude in the difference between the Israeli and the PpPp.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wassa madda, pbel?
> 
> Somebody let a little hot air out of your pontificating about AIPAC?
> 
> Better a juvenile cheerleader than a fifth columnist for the Bad Guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isnt it funny Pbel that anyone who supports Israel, you make them out to be an Israel firster??
> Kondor is. It Jewish or Israel and hes not even a Christian Zionist, he just sees the conflict for what it is, which is something pro Palestinians cant.
Click to expand...

Just your average Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from Chicago (_and environs_)...


----------



## aris2chat

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the fake Sharon quote is all over the web -- in all the NeoNazi/KKK anti-Semitic sites which is probably where you first saw it and then you couldn't restrain yourself from using it over and over and over even when it was shown to you that it was fake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Airhead #1...keep repeating your paranoia about people hating you...Can you answer why there is the kind of hate you describe, I certainly don't see it or   ever experience it around Boston, but that hate brought us a bombing Marathon last year...
> 
> And the reason given by the bomber, "America and her allies are killing Muslims." or something like that.
> 
> Frankly as an American, I want out of those hell holes and let them sort it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Burying Sharon  and We Jews control America | Veterans Today
> 
> 
> 
> www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 11, 2014 - Sharon's we Jews control America quote was outrageous, scandalous, .... On January 11, 2013, Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, a far more ...
> 
> 
> Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.or...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in A...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 20, 2002 - At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying . ... American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the ... May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, 'I control America.
> 
> 
> Israel Owns America!? Ariel Sharon: "We control ... - Yahoo Answers
> 
> 
> 
> answers.yahoo.com  All Categories  Politics & Government  Politics*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 27, 2013 - Google/Yahoo: COPY + PASTE, We control America + Ariel ... Syndicated Columnist Georgie Anne Geyer Uses Fabricated Sharon Quote
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon Quotes - BrainyQuote
> 
> 
> 
> www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ariel_sharon.html*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotations by Ariel Sharon, Israeli Leader, Born February 27, 1928. ... and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve. ... And it is our duty and my responsibility to see that we will never compromise about ...
> 
> 
> Sharon's Infamous Comment - "We Control America" - Rense
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Isralis' policies of continued violence ...
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Did Ariel Sharon REALLY say this?
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  ...  Questionable Quotes Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nov 13, 2001 - 8 posts - *1 author
> I've come across the following quote on some obviously anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sites like Radio ... We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.
> 
> 
> snopes.com: Israel Controls America???
> 
> 
> 
> msgboard.snopes.com  snopes.com  Archived Forums  Politics Archive*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oct 26, 2001 - 15 posts - *3 authors
> we control America" Occupied Jerusalem: 3 ... session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister ... quote: ...
> 
> 
> Reliable source for "...we the Jewish people control America ...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront - White Nationalist Community  Stormfront  General  Quotations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jul 31, 2007 - 6 posts - *6 authors
> Is there any reliable source for this quote, I mean if I quote that and then ... "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America. ... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres.
> 
> 
> Ariel sharon quotes
> 
> 1 post
> 
> Nov 20, 2003
> 
> 
> Alleged quote from Ariel Sharon...
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Jul 17, 2002
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a source for this quote
> 
> 5 posts
> 
> Mar 24, 2002
> 
> 
> Sharon Admits Jewish Control of America
> 
> 4 posts
> 
> Oct 4, 2001
> 
> 
> More results from Stormfront - White Nationalist Community
> 
> 
> 
> We, The Jewish People, Control America, and the Americans Know It
> 
> 
> 
> bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/.../we-jewish-people-control-america-and.h...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jan 13, 2014 - You've probably seen the MAINSTREAM MEDIA eulogizing the "great" former leader of Israel Ariel Sharon. You've just seen a media ...
> 
> 
> Ariel Sharon:" We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The ...
> 
> 
> 
> www.intifada-palestine.com/.../ariel-sharon-we-the-jewish-people-control...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 4, 2009 - Ariel Sharon: We, the Jewish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it. Ariel. Infamous Israeli Quotes. You can help us or we 'will ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just what are you trying to prove, Pbel?  Are you denying that even when you were told that the quote was a fake and the newspaper reporter apologized for it, you kept on using it?  As you can see from the numerous sites you have listed that the anti-Semitic hate sites had a field day with the fake quote, and no doubt that is where you first learned of that quote.
Click to expand...


more crazy quotes that were not said?
lies and more lies?


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This, unfortunately, is an example and extension of the "It is All About ME, ME, ME!" attitude.   It is extremely common in the Narcissistic Personality of the Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian persona (PpPp).
> 
> There are a number of reasons why America should back away from becoming involved in attempting to drive a political solution to the Middle East dilemma _(the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)_; yet still, support the protection of the Jewish State.  But the "It is all about Me" attitude is not one of the reasons.
> 
> Nor is pure nationalism _(a single-minded focus, loyalty and devotion to a America)_ --- _what's good for America is good for us, and forget about the rest_ --- the right posture to assume.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether or not Israel _(or the Palestinian for that matter)_ is a good neighbor, friend, or ally to America is as unimportant to the issues at hand.  Nor is it important that America receive an immediate, short-term, benefit from its involvement, of any consequence.  What is important is the maintenance of the original ideals behind the promotion and establishment of the Jewish State.  That is, the preservation of a society and culture of a people that has been oppressed down through the ages; the desire to achieve Jewish political independence, with a separate identity and culture but had no state of their own --- against --- a wave of incessant and excessive Arab Nationalism, and its fanatically devotion to Jihad and its self-interests, often associated with a grandiose sense of self-importance, and diametrically opposed to the preservation effort.  The PpPp has a sense of entitlement --- unreasonable expectations --- of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with uniquely Arab expectations.  The PpPp is totally lacking in any form of empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the aspirations and needs of other cultures; preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, and brilliance --- attributes they consistently fail to demonstrate or achieve in any meaningful way, shape or form.
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to cry "genocide!"  Yet little is it remembered that it was the PpPp that "made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition [GA/RES/181(II)]. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out &#8212; man, woman and child."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to claim "apartheid!"  Yet little is it remembered that the  Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Ambassador to the United States (Maen Areikat) said "that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Israelis."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!"  Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. "Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities."  The following day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the PpPp in defying Resolution 181(II) of the UN.
> 
> Even today, as HAMAS Ministry of Education _(under Article 15 of the Covenant - "The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty")_, where "Jihad" is expressed as an individual duty of every Moslem,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas objects to UN human rights book in schools said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) &#8212; Gaza's Hamas authorities have blocked a U.N. refugee agency from introducing textbooks promoting human rights into local schools, saying it ignores Palestinian cultural mores and focuses too heavily on "peaceful" means of conflict resolution.
> 
> Motesem al-Minawi, spokesman for the Hamas-run Education Ministry, said Thursday that the government believes the curriculum does not match the "ideology and philosophy" of the local population.
> 
> But perhaps worst of all, the books focused on &#8220;peaceful resistance as the only way of achieving freedom and independence.&#8221; The entire eighth grade curriculum, Al-Minawi lamented, is &#8220;not dedicated to human rights but to domesticate the psyche of the Palestinian pupil, fostering negative feelings toward armed resistance.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PpPp is diametrically opposed the the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered (A/RES/25/2625).  Instead they suggest that there is some legitimacy in "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans not to get all tied-up in the bantering of the day and remember the basics of the struggle.  The PpPp believe that the very documents that the Jewish People followed as a guide - The Partition of Palestine in 1947 [GA/RES/181(II)], and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  And that the armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  And many of the outspoken PpPp see JIHAD! as the only true solution.  "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."  (Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant)
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans to understand the scope and nature of the PpPp and the morality for which they stand.
> 
> Yes, the Israelis are not perfect.  But in saying that, there is a huge magnitude in the difference between the Israeli and the PpPp.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Being a Psychology/Pol. Science major I too can see your persona falls under the inferiority complex...just look at your avatar, nice military setting trying to look like George Patton. But George was a straight shooter not the hypocrite with bells and whistles of  who sells an invasion of a peaceful people just because the British decided to declared  Belfour like the Pirates they have been throughout their history...

Its not for me Rocco, I call a spade a spade...Western Colonialism will never set amongst the Arabs, they will fight for their lands until they win...

That's what I see if Israel does not accept the UN Resolutions and the terms of the Arab League .


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out_..."
> 
> 
> 
> That is far from the impression that one gets when reading your posts over an extended period of time, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. My loyalties and their priority are: God, Family and Country - and my country is the United States of America. I volunteered and served my country in wartime (non-combat role) and routinely advocate for her best interests in my own real-world interactions.
> 
> I am merely one of the vast numbers of Americans who (1) believe that friendship and alliance with Israel is both strategically and tactically advantageous to the United States, (2) understand the deep spiritual connection between Judaism and Christianity and Western culture, (3) are proud of America's commitment to helping the Jews reclaim their ancestral and spiritual homeland and to recover from the Holocaust and (4) realize that disengaging from Israel means that Radical Islam (including the 9-11 terrorists) has won - allowing them to dictate to the United States, whom it may befriend, and whom it may form alliances with, and whom it may not.
> 
> But unless Israel turns on the United States, I applaud our ongoing and strong support for Israel, and will continue to counterpoint those who advocate for Palestinian interests, or otherwise for disengaging from our friend and ally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for your opinion on the subject.
Click to expand...


As for you Konquistador , I understand now why you jingo about expelling the Palestinians in Eretz Israel, its culturally ingrained...


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> all this from the fountain of idiocy...can you link my comments to Islamist sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you prove that you are losing the argument by resorting to personal abuse.
> 
> Yes I can and have linked all your comments to Islamic sources, you are as bad as the child who uses facebook  pages to support his failed arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove and provide those links. liar.
Click to expand...


Resorting to the "L" word? 
Argumentum ad hominem


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean that Israel has America in its pocket, it just means that they which strings to pull to get a desired effect. Just as America knows which strings to pull to lead Israel to a different solution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The back tracking of a Zionist soldier caught with his hand in the cookie jar: Phoenall...
> 
> 
> 
> N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story - POLITICO.com
> 
> Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats traditional base among Jews.
> 
> *One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, were in trouble.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when was it they, AIPAC, forced the USA to take action against Syria and Assad. Did it happen in your fantasy world, or was it on the 5th plane of existence. If there has been no ass kicking then we can safely say THAT YOU ARE A LYING POS ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST.
Click to expand...



The Neocons, Israel, and the Iraq War


July 17, 2003
 The Guardian (UK) 
The Spies Who Pushed for War

Shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

by Julian Borger 
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney. 

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war. . . . 

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise. 

FULL TEXT 





*Michael Lind, "Israel Lobby Distorts U.S. Foreign Policy," Prospect Magazine, April 2002 

 "Whose War? Israel's Say Jewish Writers," The Wisdom Fund, March 12, 2003 

 [But the argument [installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy] has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisors who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, --Greg Miller, "Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'," Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2003] *
 [Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. . . .


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> _Being a psychology/Pol. Science major I too can see your persona falls under the inferiority complex...just look at your avatar, nice military setting trying to look like George Patton_...


Wow... Psych _AND_ PoliSci?... Golly-gosh gee-willikers, Emmy Lou !!! ... you are so wise, and well-educated, and in multiple disciplines, no less!!! ... surely your training and superior intellect and superior insights into the people and the world at-large will put us all to shame by comparison, and cause us to scamper, and abandon our position, when your Light of Education and Reason and Righteousness are turned upon all of us Neanderthal supporters of Israel !!!

What a crock of shit.



> "..._But George was a straight shooter not the a hypocrite with bells and whistles of  who sells an invasion of a peaceful people just because the British decided to declare  Belfour, like the Pirates they have been throughout their history_..."



I do not recall the British manifesting pirate-like behavior in connection with Palestine; rather, they conquered Palestine from the Ottomans as part and parcel of prosecuting the war against the Central Powers during WWI, they had promised a Jewish homeland as a matter of war-expediency in order to enlist the support of the Jews of Palestine and elsewhere in the British Empire, and both their control of Palestine and the intentions behind Balfour were confirmed by the premier international governance and collaboration polity of the times - the League of Nations.

The idea that this Inconvenient Truth vexes you pro-Palestinian Fifth-Columnist types immeasurably and that it bars your way to otherwise de-legitimizing modern-day Jewish claims to a piece of that land, is immaterial to the facts as these played out (and continue to play out) in the Real World, in direct contravention to what you would _like_ it to be. Fortunately, you-and-yours don't have the final say in such things.

I would have thought that a Psych Major would have a better handle on Self-Delusion.



> "..._Its not for me Rocco, I call a spade a spade...Western Colonialism will never set amongst the Arabs, they will fight for their lands until they win_..."


Then they must fight for their lands until they win.

Or die trying.

Or become worn-out and give up, as Muslims and Arabs so oftentimes do.

The likelihood of this latter outcome materializing approaches 1, in light of Jordanian and Egyptian blockades and shunnings and abandonment of their old Palestinian clientele.



> "..._That's what I see if Israel does not accept the UN terms of the Arab League._"


Others see it much differently, and their opinions are at _least_ as valid and likely to materialize as future outcomes as your own vision might.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out_..."
> 
> 
> 
> That is far from the impression that one gets when reading your posts over an extended period of time, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. My loyalties and their priority are: God, Family and Country - and my country is the United States of America. I volunteered and served my country in wartime (non-combat role) and routinely advocate for her best interests in my own real-world interactions.
> 
> I am merely one of the vast numbers of Americans who (1) believe that friendship and alliance with Israel is both strategically and tactically advantageous to the United States, (2) understand the deep spiritual connection between Judaism and Christianity and Western culture, (3) are proud of America's commitment to helping the Jews reclaim their ancestral and spiritual homeland and to recover from the Holocaust and (4) realize that disengaging from Israel means that Radical Islam (including the 9-11 terrorists) has won - allowing them to dictate to the United States, whom it may befriend, and whom it may form alliances with, and whom it may not.
> 
> But unless Israel turns on the United States, I applaud our ongoing and strong support for Israel, and will continue to counterpoint those who advocate for Palestinian interests, or otherwise for disengaging from our friend and ally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for your opinion on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for you Konquistador , I understand now why you jingo about expelling the Palestinians in Eretz Israel, its culturally ingrained...
Click to expand...

I don't 'jingo' about expelling the Palestinians.

I perceive such a large-scale Eviction and Expulsion as the most likely End-Game for Israel in connection with the Palestinian Troubles, and the only one guaranteed to give her peace within the confines of her own borders.

You underestimate the power of Religion and Emotional Commitment that the Jews have to completing their Reconquista and retaking all of old Eretz Yisrael, and the hardening of the heart and desperation to which 2000 years of persecution and the outright slaughter of 6,000,000 of their own within living memory has driven them.

In the end, to avoid the results of a shifting population demographic, they will have no choice but to drive out the Palestinians and to fill the vacuum with Jews, in order to preseve their resurrected homeland as a Jewish State.

This is not a culturally-ingrained mantra or perspective.

It is cold, hard, brutal, merciless logic.

The rest is merely an explanation of why such a logical outcome pleases so many - myself included - rather than the culturally-imposed bias-as-prediction to which you mistakenly attribute it.

One would think that a person boasting such a wealth of cross-training would have done a better job of making such necessary distinctions as a tactical necessity incumbent upon one's own advocacy efforts.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Having a career in government service (of one sort or another), from the time I served in Vietnam (1970) until my return from Yemen (2010), I had a multitude of pictures I could have chosen as an Avatar; many of which much more militaristic than the Baghdad picture I use _(notice it shows not a single weapon nor military TA-50)_.  It is rather a benign photo telling very little of where or when it was taken; or what organizational affiliation it may disclose.  Certainly, the polo shirt and 5.11s tell you nothing.  

GEN Patton would have surely --- had a more dynamic pose.  I don't emulate other  people, I am just who I am; no frills as you've implied.  But many thanks for the compliment.



pbel said:


> Being a Psychology/Pol. Science major I too can see your persona falls under the inferiority complex...just look at your avatar, nice military setting trying to look like George Patton. But George was a straight shooter not the hypocrite with bells and whistles of  who sells an invasion of a peaceful people just because the British decided to declared  Belfour like the Pirates they have been throughout their history...
> 
> Its not for me Rocco, I call a spade a spade...Western Colonialism will never set amongst the Arabs, they will fight for their lands until they win...
> 
> That's what I see if Israel does not accept the UN Resolutions and the terms of the Arab League .


*(COMMENT)*

It makes very little difference how long the Palestinian and pro-Palestinian people choose to aggravate and extend the conflict.  They only hurt themselves.  In another half century, there will not be any Palestinians remaining that had Mandate era citizenship or residency outside the security barrier.  There will be no Jihadist or Fedayeen leadership remaining that had any first hand experiences before the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.  They will have no idea what in the world they are fighting about.  All they will know is that because of their history of past criminal behaviors, and the perspective in my previous posting (#2726 _supra_) they wasted an enormous amount of time and effort pursuing Jihadist and Fedayeen objectives, instead of building a free and self-sufficient, self-governing state that is both sound and prosperous; something to be proud of --- a legacy for their descendants.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong way round the land that you call Palestine was originally promised to the Jews, so that is the legal position.
> 
> Hamas is stating a personal opinion that they have been told is not on the cards and is against the UN charter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never any law or agreement that promised all of the land of Palestine, to the Jews and the Jews alone.
> 
> This is an old Nazionist claim.
Click to expand...


sykes-picot, balfour, mandate article IV, peel, UN 181


----------



## Victory67

aris2chat said:


> sykes-picot, balfour, mandate article IV, peel, UN 181



You have misread all of those agreemants, declarations, and resolutions.

None of them give all of Palestine to the Jews exclusively.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This, unfortunately, is an example and extension of the "It is All About ME, ME, ME!" attitude.   It is extremely common in the Narcissistic Personality of the Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian persona (PpPp).
> 
> There are a number of reasons why America should back away from becoming involved in attempting to drive a political solution to the Middle East dilemma _(the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)_; yet still, support the protection of the Jewish State.  But the "It is all about Me" attitude is not one of the reasons.
> 
> Nor is pure nationalism _(a single-minded focus, loyalty and devotion to a America)_ --- _what's good for America is good for us, and forget about the rest_ --- the right posture to assume.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly I could care less about the players in this conflict...History and Demographics will sort it out...But Zionists like you would sell out America for Israel in a New York second.
> 
> America should get the F out of that quagmire and should outlaw American  Lobbies that cater to foreign governments with different interests than our-own.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether or not Israel _(or the Palestinian for that matter)_ is a good neighbor, friend, or ally to America is as unimportant to the issues at hand.  Nor is it important that America receive an immediate, short-term, benefit from its involvement, of any consequence.  What is important is the maintenance of the original ideals behind the promotion and establishment of the Jewish State.  That is, the preservation of a society and culture of a people that has been oppressed down through the ages; the desire to achieve Jewish political independence, with a separate identity and culture but had no state of their own --- against --- a wave of incessant and excessive Arab Nationalism, and its fanatically devotion to Jihad and its self-interests, often associated with a grandiose sense of self-importance, and diametrically opposed to the preservation effort.  The PpPp has a sense of entitlement --- unreasonable expectations --- of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with uniquely Arab expectations.  The PpPp is totally lacking in any form of empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the aspirations and needs of other cultures; preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, and brilliance --- attributes they consistently fail to demonstrate or achieve in any meaningful way, shape or form.
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to cry "genocide!"  Yet little is it remembered that it was the PpPp that "made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition [GA/RES/181(II)]. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to claim "apartheid!"  Yet little is it remembered that the  Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Ambassador to the United States (Maen Areikat) said "that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Israelis."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!"  Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. "Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities."  The following day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the PpPp in defying Resolution 181(II) of the UN.
> 
> Even today, as HAMAS Ministry of Education _(under Article 15 of the Covenant - "The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty")_, where "Jihad" is expressed as an individual duty of every Moslem,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas objects to UN human rights book in schools said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP)  Gaza's Hamas authorities have blocked a U.N. refugee agency from introducing textbooks promoting human rights into local schools, saying it ignores Palestinian cultural mores and focuses too heavily on "peaceful" means of conflict resolution.
> 
> Motesem al-Minawi, spokesman for the Hamas-run Education Ministry, said Thursday that the government believes the curriculum does not match the "ideology and philosophy" of the local population.
> 
> But perhaps worst of all, the books focused on peaceful resistance as the only way of achieving freedom and independence. The entire eighth grade curriculum, Al-Minawi lamented, is not dedicated to human rights but to domesticate the psyche of the Palestinian pupil, fostering negative feelings toward armed resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PpPp is diametrically opposed the the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered (A/RES/25/2625).  Instead they suggest that there is some legitimacy in "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans not to get all tied-up in the bantering of the day and remember the basics of the struggle.  The PpPp believe that the very documents that the Jewish People followed as a guide - The Partition of Palestine in 1947 [GA/RES/181(II)], and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  And that the armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  And many of the outspoken PpPp see JIHAD! as the only true solution.  "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."  (Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant)
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans to understand the scope and nature of the PpPp and the morality for which they stand.
> 
> Yes, the Israelis are not perfect.  But in saying that, there is a huge magnitude in the difference between the Israeli and the PpPp.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a Psychology/Pol. Science major I too can see your persona falls under the inferiority complex...just look at your avatar, nice military setting trying to look like George Patton. But George was a straight shooter not the hypocrite with bells and whistles of  who sells an invasion of a peaceful people just because the British decided to declared  Belfour like the Pirates they have been throughout their history...
> 
> Its not for me Rocco, I call a spade a spade...Western Colonialism will never set amongst the Arabs, they will fight for their lands until they win...
> 
> That's what I see if Israel does not accept the UN Resolutions and the terms of the Arab League .
Click to expand...


Obviously you could't handle the truth in his post and the reality of the conflict, so you start off your argument with insulting how the man looks in his avatar... 
You should not have bothered to have responded to this post, it's obviously beyond what you are capable of processing. 
Instead you gave us your usual shtick about how The Arabs will overwhelm Israel with demographics blah blah. Such a crock of drek.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> This, unfortunately, is an example and extension of the "It is All About ME, ME, ME!" attitude.   It is extremely common in the Narcissistic Personality of the Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian persona (PpPp).
> 
> There are a number of reasons why America should back away from becoming involved in attempting to drive a political solution to the Middle East dilemma _(the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)_; yet still, support the protection of the Jewish State.  But the "It is all about Me" attitude is not one of the reasons.
> 
> Nor is pure nationalism _(a single-minded focus, loyalty and devotion to a America)_ --- _what's good for America is good for us, and forget about the rest_ --- the right posture to assume.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether or not Israel _(or the Palestinian for that matter)_ is a good neighbor, friend, or ally to America is as unimportant to the issues at hand.  Nor is it important that America receive an immediate, short-term, benefit from its involvement, of any consequence.  What is important is the maintenance of the original ideals behind the promotion and establishment of the Jewish State.  That is, the preservation of a society and culture of a people that has been oppressed down through the ages; the desire to achieve Jewish political independence, with a separate identity and culture but had no state of their own --- against --- a wave of incessant and excessive Arab Nationalism, and its fanatically devotion to Jihad and its self-interests, often associated with a grandiose sense of self-importance, and diametrically opposed to the preservation effort.  The PpPp has a sense of entitlement --- unreasonable expectations --- of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with uniquely Arab expectations.  The PpPp is totally lacking in any form of empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the aspirations and needs of other cultures; preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, and brilliance --- attributes they consistently fail to demonstrate or achieve in any meaningful way, shape or form.
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to cry "genocide!"  Yet little is it remembered that it was the PpPp that "made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition [GA/RES/181(II)]. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out  man, woman and child."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to claim "apartheid!"  Yet little is it remembered that the  Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Ambassador to the United States (Maen Areikat) said "that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Israelis."
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!"  Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. "Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities."  The following day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the PpPp in defying Resolution 181(II) of the UN.
> 
> Even today, as HAMAS Ministry of Education _(under Article 15 of the Covenant - "The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty")_, where "Jihad" is expressed as an individual duty of every Moslem,
> 
> 
> 
> The PpPp is diametrically opposed the the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered (A/RES/25/2625).  Instead they suggest that there is some legitimacy in "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans not to get all tied-up in the bantering of the day and remember the basics of the struggle.  The PpPp believe that the very documents that the Jewish People followed as a guide - The Partition of Palestine in 1947 [GA/RES/181(II)], and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.  And that the armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  And many of the outspoken PpPp see JIHAD! as the only true solution.  "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."  (Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant)
> 
> Yes, it is important for Americans to understand the scope and nature of the PpPp and the morality for which they stand.
> 
> Yes, the Israelis are not perfect.  But in saying that, there is a huge magnitude in the difference between the Israeli and the PpPp.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a Psychology/Pol. Science major I too can see your persona falls under the inferiority complex...just look at your avatar, nice military setting trying to look like George Patton. But George was a straight shooter not the hypocrite with bells and whistles of  who sells an invasion of a peaceful people just because the British decided to declared  Belfour like the Pirates they have been throughout their history...
> 
> Its not for me Rocco, I call a spade a spade...Western Colonialism will never set amongst the Arabs, they will fight for their lands until they win...
> 
> That's what I see if Israel does not accept the UN Resolutions and the terms of the Arab League .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you could't handle the truth in his post and the reality of the conflict, so you start off your argument with insulting how the man looks in his avatar...
> You should not have bothered to have responded to this post, it's obviously beyond what you are capable of processing.
> Instead you gave us your usual shtick about how The Arabs will overwhelm Israel with demographics blah blah. Such a crock of drek.
Click to expand...


That is a problem with hypocrisy...Rocco can call me narcissistic but replying in kind is wrong. Go sit in a corner...

As far as my long-term analysis:  I think if you look at the history and the numbers, there is no other outcome unless Israel is truly accepted in the neighborhood.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!" Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.



OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?

The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.

There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!" Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.
> 
> There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.
Click to expand...


Again, aqisition of land has nothing to do with this. You made that up.
Unless you can show me proof that land aqiisition was needed for the Jews to declare independence? 
Its obvious that without your '  but but but the Jews never acquired the land' lie, your agenda would be severely diminished.

So I'll wait for that elusive link


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a Psychology/Pol. Science major I too can see your persona falls under the inferiority complex...just look at your avatar, nice military setting trying to look like George Patton. But George was a straight shooter not the hypocrite with bells and whistles of  who sells an invasion of a peaceful people just because the British decided to declared  Belfour like the Pirates they have been throughout their history...
> 
> Its not for me Rocco, I call a spade a spade...Western Colonialism will never set amongst the Arabs, they will fight for their lands until they win...
> 
> That's what I see if Israel does not accept the UN Resolutions and the terms of the Arab League .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you could't handle the truth in his post and the reality of the conflict, so you start off your argument with insulting how the man looks in his avatar...
> You should not have bothered to have responded to this post, it's obviously beyond what you are capable of processing.
> Instead you gave us your usual shtick about how The Arabs will overwhelm Israel with demographics blah blah. Such a crock of drek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a problem with hypocrisy...Rocco can call me narcissistic but replying in kind is wrong. Go sit in a corner...
> 
> As far as my long-term analysis:  I think if you look at the history and the numbers, there is no other outcome unless Israel is truly accepted in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...


Ahh so you made that comment out of revenge... Nice

Either way, you addressed nothing that he said


----------



## Victory67

A.  The Mandate has expired.  

B.  The Mandate did not give Palestine exclusively to the Jews.  It clearly stated that a Jewish homeland would be created but non-Jews would be present in said homeland.


----------



## Victory67

A.  The Mandate has expired.  

B.  The Mandate did not give Palestine exclusively to the Jews.  It clearly stated that a Jewish homeland would be created but non-Jews would be present in said homeland.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!" Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.
> 
> There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, aqisition of land has nothing to do with this. You made that up.
> Unless you can show me proof that land aqiisition was needed for the Jews to declare independence?
> Its obvious that without your '  but but but the Jews never acquired the land' lie, your agenda would be severely diminished.
> 
> So I'll wait for that elusive link
Click to expand...




> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933



A people need a defined territory to declare statehood.


----------



## natstew

Israel, the Jewish State, was not created by the U.N. in 1947 or any other year. It was reclaimed by the Jews in 1947. The first 'Nation State' to ever exist in the area between Egypt and Syria, (Assyria), and the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea was the Kingdom of Israel. There have always been, "Children Of  Israel" living in the above  described Land. Before Israel, there were only tribes and city states in the land ran by tyrants and despots. 'Jews', 'Children Of Israel' (Abraham was renamed Israel by God) have had a constant presence in the Promised Land since they returned from their sojourn in Egypt and conquered the uncivilized tribes and city-states in the area. Even after the Roman Diaspora there was a sizable presence of Jews in The Holy Land. They never officially gave it up and are still the most historical owners of the before described Land.
 History didn't start with the U.N. Words on paper are just that, 'words on paper'.
 If not for the oil wealth, the Arabs would still be wiping their asses by dragging them on the ground like the dogs they are, so called, "Palestinians" included.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> sykes-picot, balfour, mandate article IV, peel, UN 181
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have misread all of those agreemants, declarations, and resolutions.
> 
> None of them give all of Palestine to the Jews exclusively.
Click to expand...




San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held at Villa Devachan in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui

 Resolutions passed at this conference determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.

The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers," and were not finalized until four years later. The conference decisions were embodied in the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions with regard to the Palestine mandate were finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the First Conference of London (February 1920). *The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. *Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Under the agreement, Great Britain granted France 25 percent of the oil production from Mosul and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[12]

*Recognizing that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria and Lebanon, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone."*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!" Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.
> 
> There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.
Click to expand...





 The UN by prior arrangement, which means the UN then became the mandatory power. So the Jewish agency was still part of the mandate after Britain handed the reins to the UN. The land was officially mandated land under the power of Britain who gave it to the Jews. The partition plan was an either/or state of affairs so only needed one party to agree to the terms for it to be implemented. Because Israel did this on May 14 1948 the partition plan was accepted as being fulfilled under INTERNATIONAL LAW. They also showed the abilty to free determination so were accepted as a nation by the UN. The Palestinians showed no such ability so lost the chance to become a nation until 1988 on much less land than originally planned.


----------



## Phoenall

Victory67 said:


> A.  The Mandate has expired.
> 
> B.  The Mandate did not give Palestine exclusively to the Jews.  It clearly stated that a Jewish homeland would be created but non-Jews would be present in said homeland.






Yes the mandate expired, but not until Israel had been recognised by the UN as a Jewish state.

 The mandate did give all of Palestine to the Jews as their homeland, and if they wanted non Jews could live there in peace as full citizens.

 This is were the whole thing collapses as the non Jews decided to invade AND STEAL ALL THE LAND. This left them with a major defeat and nothing to show for it. Today there are non Jews living in the Jewish nation of Israel as Equals under the law, they have more rights than the Jews as they don't have to do national service and they are allowed to teach their children differently.

 So were is the difficulty in the non Jews living in Israel ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.
> 
> There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, aqisition of land has nothing to do with this. You made that up.
> Unless you can show me proof that land aqiisition was needed for the Jews to declare independence?
> Its obvious that without your '  but but but the Jews never acquired the land' lie, your agenda would be severely diminished.
> 
> So I'll wait for that elusive link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A people need a defined territory to declare statehood.
Click to expand...





 Yes  it seems so, just like Israel had the defined territory under the partition plan so could declare independence. The Palestinians forgot about that when they tried in 1949, and failed.


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Our friend "Phoenall" is essentially correct in the salient points.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PpPp is often heard to complain about "invasion!" Yet little is it remembered that the that on mid-night 14/15 May 1948, UK (Mandatory) relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. And, simultaneously, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.
> 
> There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN by prior arrangement, which means the UN then became the mandatory power. So the Jewish agency was still part of the mandate after Britain handed the reins to the UN. The land was officially mandated land under the power of Britain who gave it to the Jews. The partition plan was an either/or state of affairs so only needed one party to agree to the terms for it to be implemented. Because Israel did this on May 14 1948 the partition plan was accepted as being fulfilled under INTERNATIONAL LAW. They also showed the abilty to free determination so were accepted as a nation by the UN. The Palestinians showed no such ability so lost the chance to become a nation until 1988 on much less land than originally planned.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
The UK relinquished its Mandate to the Successor Government, the UN Palestine Commission, which then implemented the Jewish Agency acceptance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) "guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue;" in the GA adopted "steps preparatory to independence."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The UK relinquished its Mandate to the Successor Government, the UN Palestine Commission, which then implemented the Jewish Agency acceptance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) "guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue;" in the GA adopted "steps preparatory to independence."



When did the UNPC offer and Israel accept a defined territory?

You have a link to that agreement, no?


----------



## aris2chat

Victory67 said:


> A.  The Mandate has expired.
> 
> B.  The Mandate did not give Palestine exclusively to the Jews.  It clearly stated that a Jewish homeland would be created but non-Jews would be present in said homeland.



Israel is not exclusively jewish.  All faith are free worship.

>>Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Druzeism and the Bahá'í Faith. Furthermore, the law formally recognizes ten separate sects of Christianity: the Roman, Armenian, Maronite, Greek, Syriac, and Chaldean Catholic Churches; the Eastern Orthodox Greek Orthodox Church; the Oriental Orthodox Syriac Orthodox Church; the Armenian Apostolic Church; and Anglicanism. 
Members of unrecognized religions are free to practice their religion. <<
http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_01.pdf


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The offer was not made by the UNPC, but by the Resolution.  The UNPC was the implementing agency.  The Israeli Declaration of Independence was the formal acceptance through the implemented protocols of the UNPC and the Resolution.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The UK relinquished its Mandate to the Successor Government, the UN Palestine Commission, which then implemented the Jewish Agency acceptance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) "guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue;" in the GA adopted "steps preparatory to independence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the UNPC offer and Israel accept a defined territory?
> 
> You have a link to that agreement, no?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The boundaries, as stipulated in the resolution became alter through the combat results of the invasion by seven Arab States including six Members of the United Nations.

The issue of territorial boundaries was debated in the UN prior to the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) _(Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations)_.  You will note that Resolution 273(III) refers to "declarations and explanations" which refers to the Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations [(A/818)(A/AC.24/SR.45  5 May 1949)] which discusses at length the General Assembly's deliberations on the matter of territorial boundaries and the reasons why the Assembly accepted the post-Conflict submission as presented in May 1949.  Since then, two other major conflicts have erupted, further altering the landscape and ground truth over control.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, the British relinquished its mandate to whom?
> 
> The Jewish Agency was a part of the mandate and served at the pleasure of the mandate. Without the mandate it had no function or legal status in Palestine.
> 
> There was never a formal acquisition of the land proposed for a Jewish state by Israel. That was part of the suggested, non binding partition plan that was not implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, aqisition of land has nothing to do with this. You made that up.
> Unless you can show me proof that land aqiisition was needed for the Jews to declare independence?
> Its obvious that without your '  but but but the Jews never acquired the land' lie, your agenda would be severely diminished.
> 
> So I'll wait for that elusive link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A people need a defined territory to declare statehood.
Click to expand...


Those are rights and duties of states, not about declaring statehood. Also, all the land inside the green line is Israels defined territory.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you could't handle the truth in his post and the reality of the conflict, so you start off your argument with insulting how the man looks in his avatar...
> You should not have bothered to have responded to this post, it's obviously beyond what you are capable of processing.
> Instead you gave us your usual shtick about how The Arabs will overwhelm Israel with demographics blah blah. Such a crock of drek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a problem with hypocrisy...Rocco can call me narcissistic but replying in kind is wrong. Go sit in a corner...
> 
> As far as my long-term analysis:  I think if you look at the history and the numbers, there is no other outcome unless Israel is truly accepted in the neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh so you made that comment out of revenge... Nice
> 
> Either way, you addressed nothing that he said
Click to expand...


Spara Spara, cara Spara...An old Sicilian adage...if being shot at shoot back! 

I was surprised that our Rocco would get personal...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a problem with hypocrisy...Rocco can call me narcissistic but replying in kind is wrong. Go sit in a corner...
> 
> As far as my long-term analysis:  I think if you look at the history and the numbers, there is no other outcome unless Israel is truly accepted in the neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh so you made that comment out of revenge... Nice
> 
> Either way, you addressed nothing that he said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spara Spara, cara Spara...An old Sicilian adage...if being shot at shoot back!
> 
> I was surprised that our Rocco would get personal...
Click to expand...


Guess what Im eating right now...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh so you made that comment out of revenge... Nice
> 
> Either way, you addressed nothing that he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spara Spara, cara Spara...An old Sicilian adage...if being shot at shoot back!
> 
> I was surprised that our Rocco would get personal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what Im eating right now...
Click to expand...


Pizza and Lox topping.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, aqisition of land has nothing to do with this. You made that up.
> Unless you can show me proof that land aqiisition was needed for the Jews to declare independence?
> Its obvious that without your '  but but but the Jews never acquired the land' lie, your agenda would be severely diminished.
> 
> So I'll wait for that elusive link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A people need a defined territory to declare statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are rights and duties of states, not about declaring statehood.* Also, all the land inside the green line is Israels defined territory.*
Click to expand...


Not so.



> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



The armistice lines specifically *do not* define territory.


----------



## Mojo2

I gotta say this...

I have resisted this urge as long as I have known of this thread because I believed doing this would be pointless and silly of me, but I swear to you all that whenever I see this thread title I ALWAYS  am first struck by its bold declaration.

I will not Bowl.

That's how it ALWAYS looks to me.

But, I must also say, you have to respect the wishes of someone so definitive about his recreative preferences.


----------



## pbel

Mojo2 said:


> I gotta say this...
> 
> I have resisted this urge as long as I have known of this thread because I believed doing this would be pointless and silly of me, but I swear to you all that whenever I see this thread title I ALWAYS  am first struck by its bold declaration.
> 
> I will not Bowl.
> 
> That's how it ALWAYS looks to me.
> 
> But, I must also say, you have to respect the wishes of someone so definitive about his recreative preferences.



You hit the nail on the head...I argue on these boards that only a real amicable peace deal blessed by the Arab League that has offered full recognition and trade can save Israel...Israel ignores the long term threat of attritional wars that have thus far been successful against all previous invaders.

Sure, Rocco, Toast, and the rest of the Zionuts prefer walls and war. The Christian Crusaders tried this, they lost in 300 years of constant vigilance and cold wars.

If Israel controls E. Jerusalem, there will never be peace...

They can wait and die fighting, they have done that because their Religion is their guide...

They will never bow!!!


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people need a defined territory to declare statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are rights and duties of states, not about declaring statehood.* Also, all the land inside the green line is Israels defined territory.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines specifically *do not* define territory.
Click to expand...

Tinny, the only terms you (and those who think like you) will accept is the leftmost (100%) map at far left in the image, below...







You can't have it.

Either you (metaphorically, your side) face Reality and compromise, or lose it all.

That is a choice that has been facing you for 66 years.

And you have been making the wrong choice for those past 66 years, and continue to do so, today.

Comes a time, when the stakeholder who controls the land, grows sufficiently weary of the intransigence, and moves to break the long-running and impossible deadlock, by opting to CUT the Gordian Knot, giving up on trying to un-tie it.

The way for the Israelis to CUT the Gordian Knot are to either (1) slaughter the Palestinians or (2) kick them out and send them packing across the borders of Jordan and Lebanon, never to return.

Unlike the Palestinians, sworn to drown the Jews in the Mediterranean, the Israelis, as a People, are far too humane to opt for (1), so they'll probably settle for (2), if you push them far enough.

Which is just about where they are now, in contemplating that Gordian Knot that you insist on presenting them with.

With people like you in charge (and that's what Hamas is, in this metaphorical sense), Israel has no other choice, if it is to survive, and have defensible borders that will sustain them over the coming centuries and generations.

And, I assure you, they do intend to survive.

Option (1) is unacceptable, but they'll probably get away with (2) if it's done right; there is certainly adequate precedent for such population transfers in modern history.

Your (your side's) intransigence is what is pushing Israel towards just such an answer; even though it will cause them some trouble, for a while, afterwards.

Better a few years of censure than extermination.

Keep it up... you're (your side) ruining whatever tiny chance that might otherwise still exist for a reasonable compromise, and you're condemning the Palestinians to Eviction and Expulsion - mostly because you don't believe it can happen, and are stupidly pressing your luck with that delusion firmly entrenched in your minds.

The warning signs are there, but you (your side) are wearing blinkers, and cannot see them, or will not heed them.

And, when the day comes that you must face the consequences of such blindness - and that day is probably closer than any of you imagine - then, the world (beyond the realm of Islam, anyway) will not help you to remedy your stupidity, and you will be scattered, and absorbed and assimilated into the surrounding region, and be quickly forgotten.

Nature will have de-selected you.

Such is the fate of blind fools.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people need a defined territory to declare statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are rights and duties of states, not about declaring statehood.* Also, all the land inside the green line is Israels defined territory.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines specifically *do not* define territory.
Click to expand...


First of all, your link did not disprove whAt I said as usual. I see nothing there about defined territory

Second, why are you bringing up the Armistice agreements when they were signed BEFORE the treaties with Egypt and Jordan that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS with them and Israel.

Third,  I dont know why I bother with you when it comes to debating Israels. You have no clue what you are talking about and you cant even back up your statements


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say this...
> 
> I have resisted this urge as long as I have known of this thread because I believed doing this would be pointless and silly of me, but I swear to you all that whenever I see this thread title I ALWAYS  am first struck by its bold declaration.
> 
> I will not Bowl.
> 
> That's how it ALWAYS looks to me.
> 
> But, I must also say, you have to respect the wishes of someone so definitive about his recreative preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head...I argue on these boards that only a real amicable peace deal blessed by the Arab League that has offered full recognition and trade can save Israel...Israel ignores the long term threat of attritional wars that have thus far been successful against all previous invaders.
> 
> Sure, Rocco, Toast, and the rest of the Zionuts prefer walls and war. The Christian Crusaders tried this, they lost in 300 years of constant vigilance and cold wars.
> 
> If Israel controls E. Jerusalem, there will never be peace...
> 
> They can wait and die fighting, they have done that because their Religion is their guide...
> 
> They will never bow!!!
Click to expand...


I dont prefer walls liar, I prefer peace AND security for Israel. 

The problem with leftytards like you is that you could care less about Israels security and that you underestimate the true intentions of many Palestinians and the Arab world.

Jerusalem will never be divided again.

Comprende??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are rights and duties of states, not about declaring statehood.* Also, all the land inside the green line is Israels defined territory.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The armistice lines specifically *do not* define territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your link did not disprove whAt I said as usual. I see nothing there about defined territory
> 
> Second, why are you bringing up the Armistice agreements when they were signed BEFORE the treaties with Egypt and Jordan that gave Israel INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS with them and Israel.
> 
> Third,  I dont know why I bother with you when it comes to debating Israels. You have no clue what you are talking about and you cant even back up your statements
Click to expand...


Do either Israel or Palestine recognize the armistice lines as their defined international borders?

Here are two maps.

The first map is a 1946 map of Palestine inside its international boundaries. On top of this map are the proposed (but never implemented or recognized by anybody) partition plan borders.






The second map shows the 1949 armistice lines that are specifically not to be political or territorial borders.






So, where is Palestine's territory and where is Israel's territory?


----------



## toastman

The first map is the partition plan Tinmore. What you see there are proposed borders! I honestly cannot believe that after this has been told to you sooooo many times, you still bring it up.
Second, did you read my post about how the Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE fhe treaties that gave Israel internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan??
All of The land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel. Notice how none of that land is part of the negotiations????


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> The first map is the partition plan Tinmore.


Yes, I said that.



> What you see there are proposed borders!


Yes, I said that.



> I honestly cannot believe that after this has been told to you sooooo many times, you still bring it up.


Because you still don' get it.



> Second, did you read my post about how the Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE fhe treaties that gave Israel internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan??


I did.



> All of The land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel. *Notice how none of that land is part of the negotiations????*



You just brought up an excellent point, but you probably do not know what it is.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first map is the partition plan Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you see there are proposed borders!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> Because you still don' get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, did you read my post about how the Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE fhe treaties that gave Israel internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of The land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel. *Notice how none of that land is part of the negotiations????*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just brought up an excellent point, but you probably do not know what it is.
Click to expand...


What is this excellent point?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first map is the partition plan Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you see there are proposed borders!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> Because you still don' get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, did you read my post about how the Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE fhe treaties that gave Israel internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of The land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel. *Notice how none of that land is part of the negotiations????*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just brought up an excellent point, but you probably do not know what it is.
Click to expand...


I don't get why you debate issues that are not up for debate.

We get it Tinmore, YOU don't recognize Israels DOI or their existence. But that changes nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first map is the partition plan Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> Because you still don' get it.
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of The land inside the Green Line belongs to Israel. *Notice how none of that land is part of the negotiations????*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just brought up an excellent point, but you probably do not know what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this excellent point?
Click to expand...


Why are Israel and Palestine negotiating borders. I know that is a "final status" issue.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> Yes, I said that.
> 
> 
> Because you still don' get it.
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> 
> 
> You just brought up an excellent point, but you probably do not know what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this excellent point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are Israel and Palestine negotiating borders. I know that is a "final status" issue.
Click to expand...


Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal. That does t mean that the cease fire line separating Israel and Gaza is going to change, nor is the line separating Israel and the West Bank going to change, its just that they will become permanent internationally recognized boundaries like the armistice lines with Egypt and Jordan became after Israel signed peace treaties with them


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this excellent point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Israel and Palestine negotiating borders. I know that is a "final status" issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal. That does t mean that the cease fire line separating Israel and Gaza is going to change, nor is the line separating Israel and the West Bank going to change, its just that they will become permanent internationally recognized boundaries like the armistice lines with Egypt and Jordan became after Israel signed peace treaties with them
Click to expand...




> Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal.



That is the point. Only Palestine has the right to change Palestine's borders.

Israel can't change them.

Jordan can't change them.

Egypt can't change them.

The UN can't change them.


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Israel and Palestine negotiating borders. I know that is a "final status" issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal. That does t mean that the cease fire line separating Israel and Gaza is going to change, nor is the line separating Israel and the West Bank going to change, its just that they will become permanent internationally recognized boundaries like the armistice lines with Egypt and Jordan became after Israel signed peace treaties with them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point. Only Palestine has the right to change Palestine's borders.
> 
> Israel can't change them.
> 
> Jordan can't change them.
> 
> Egypt can't change them.
> 
> The UN can't change them.
Click to expand...


We have to remember that there were no Palestinians until they decided to call themselves that.  They must have been laughing over this at the State Department when this happened.  As one retired poster from the State Department had to say.........

Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal. That does t mean that the cease fire line separating Israel and Gaza is going to change, nor is the line separating Israel and the West Bank going to change, its just that they will become permanent internationally recognized boundaries like the armistice lines with Egypt and Jordan became after Israel signed peace treaties with them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer, Israel cant have permanent borders with the Palestinian territories until there is a final piece deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point. Only Palestine has the right to change Palestine's borders.
> 
> Israel can't change them.
> 
> Jordan can't change them.
> 
> Egypt can't change them.
> 
> The UN can't change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to remember that there were no Palestinians until they decided to call themselves that.  They must have been laughing over this at the State Department when this happened.  As one retired poster from the State Department had to say.........
> 
> Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.
Click to expand...


The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the point. Only Palestine has the right to change Palestine's borders.
> 
> Israel can't change them.
> 
> Jordan can't change them.
> 
> Egypt can't change them.
> 
> The UN can't change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to remember that there were no Palestinians until they decided to call themselves that.  They must have been laughing over this at the State Department when this happened.  As one retired poster from the State Department had to say.........
> 
> Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


There was no country of Palestine, and the Arabs living there were just called Arabs or Syrians.  Perhaps you should have been with Arafat in Russia to iron all of this out.  You could have poked him and said "Psst, remember to say that there was always a country of Palestine and we Arabs were always called Palestinians."


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the point. Only Palestine has the right to change Palestine's borders.
> 
> Israel can't change them.
> 
> Jordan can't change them.
> 
> Egypt can't change them.
> 
> The UN can't change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to remember that there were no Palestinians until they decided to call themselves that.  They must have been laughing over this at the State Department when this happened.  As one retired poster from the State Department had to say.........
> 
> Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


And?? You still didnt refute what she said


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

A misinterpretation of the obvious.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine even once.  It does not alter the Palestine Order in Council or the Mandate, or the interpretation of Article 22 of the LoN Covenant.



P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the point. Only Palestine has the right to change Palestine's borders.
> 
> Israel can't change them.
> 
> Jordan can't change them.
> 
> Egypt can't change them.
> 
> The UN can't change them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to remember that there were no Palestinians until they decided to call themselves that.  They must have been laughing over this at the State Department when this happened.  As one retired poster from the State Department had to say.........
> 
> Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Under the Treaty of Lausanne, the territory now discussed, formerly the Mandate of Palestine, as designated in Part I, Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council, was under the general heading of SECTION I, PART I, TERRITORIAL CLAUSES, ARTICLE 3 - From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(1) With Syria:
(2) With Iraq:
This Palestinian fallacy was discussed at length in Post #87 _(U.N. rights inquiry says Israel must remove settlers)_.  And the issue of "nationality" was laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne in SECTION II  - NATIONALITY - ARTICLES 30 thru 36. Yes there was a choice to be made, but "Palestinian" was not one of the choices.  Hence, the need for Order in Council clarification:


			
				The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> 59.	For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:
> (i)	Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
> (ii)	Ottoman subjects.
> (iii)	Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council


And in reading the order, one must remember what is being said when they use the word "Palestine."



			
				The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> _*PART I. - PRELIMINARY.*_
> 
> 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the *Mandate for Palestine *applies, hereinafter described as *Palestine*.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council


Finally, it is important to remember the 1948 interpretation of Palestine:



			
				UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed. -
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948



From beginning to end - Palestine _(which describes the *Mandate for Palestine* as the assigned interpretation)_ was nothing more than a "legal entity" and never a sovereign state until its Declaration of Independence in 1988; and even then, as a self-governing institution, under a stable government, able to stand alone, it is still arguable.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

and before Tinmore starts telling us that Resolution 181 has no meaning or importance:

" following upon UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, *yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.*"

Document: Palestinian Declaration of Independence, 15 Nov 1988


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say this...
> 
> I have resisted this urge as long as I have known of this thread because I believed doing this would be pointless and silly of me, but I swear to you all that whenever I see this thread title I ALWAYS  am first struck by its bold declaration.
> 
> I will not Bowl.
> 
> That's how it ALWAYS looks to me.
> 
> But, I must also say, you have to respect the wishes of someone so definitive about his recreative preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head...I argue on these boards that only a real amicable peace deal blessed by the Arab League that has offered full recognition and trade can save Israel...Israel ignores the long term threat of attritional wars that have thus far been successful against all previous invaders.
> 
> Sure, Rocco, Toast, and the rest of the Zionuts prefer walls and war. The Christian Crusaders tried this, they lost in 300 years of constant vigilance and cold wars.
> 
> If Israel controls E. Jerusalem, there will never be peace...
> 
> They can wait and die fighting, they have done that because their Religion is their guide...
> 
> They will never bow!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont prefer walls liar, I prefer peace AND security for Israel.
> 
> The problem with leftytards like you is that you could care less about Israels security and that you underestimate the true intentions of many Palestinians and the Arab world.
> 
> Jerusalem will never be divided again.
> 
> Comprende??
Click to expand...


The problem with dummies like you is how invincible Israel is: Just keep a ticket read for a quick escape...before a nuke befalls you on your self-created Armageddon.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> A misinterpretation of the obvious.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine even once.  It does not alter the Palestine Order in Council or the Mandate, or the interpretation of Article 22 of the LoN Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to remember that there were no Palestinians until they decided to call themselves that.  They must have been laughing over this at the State Department when this happened.  As one retired poster from the State Department had to say.........
> 
> Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the Treaty of Lausanne, the territory now discussed, formerly the Mandate of Palestine, as designated in Part I, Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council, was under the general heading of SECTION I, PART I, TERRITORIAL CLAUSES, ARTICLE 3 - From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:
> 
> (1) With Syria:
> (2) With Iraq:
> This Palestinian fallacy was discussed at length in Post #87 _(U.N. rights inquiry says Israel must remove settlers)_.  And the issue of "nationality" was laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne in SECTION II  - NATIONALITY - ARTICLES 30 thru 36. Yes there was a choice to be made, but "Palestinian" was not one of the choices.  Hence, the need for Order in Council clarification:
> 
> And in reading the order, one must remember what is being said when they use the word "Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*PART I. - PRELIMINARY.*_
> 
> 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the *Mandate for Palestine *applies, hereinafter described as *Palestine*.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally, it is important to remember the 1948 interpretation of Palestine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed. -
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From beginning to end - Palestine _(which describes the *Mandate for Palestine* as the assigned interpretation)_ was nothing more than a "legal entity" and never a sovereign state until its Declaration of Independence in 1988; and even then, as a self-governing institution, under a stable government, able to stand alone, it is still arguable.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco,

Are you trying to say that the Palestinians, the native citizens of Palestine, living on their own land inside their own international borders do not have the right to self determination without external interference?


----------



## Indeependent

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head...I argue on these boards that only a real amicable peace deal blessed by the Arab League that has offered full recognition and trade can save Israel...Israel ignores the long term threat of attritional wars that have thus far been successful against all previous invaders.
> 
> Sure, Rocco, Toast, and the rest of the Zionuts prefer walls and war. The Christian Crusaders tried this, they lost in 300 years of constant vigilance and cold wars.
> 
> If Israel controls E. Jerusalem, there will never be peace...
> 
> They can wait and die fighting, they have done that because their Religion is their guide...
> 
> They will never bow!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont prefer walls liar, I prefer peace AND security for Israel.
> 
> The problem with leftytards like you is that you could care less about Israels security and that you underestimate the true intentions of many Palestinians and the Arab world.
> 
> Jerusalem will never be divided again.
> 
> Comprende??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with dummies like you is how invincible Israel is: Just keep a ticket read for a quick escape...before a nuke befalls you on your self-created Armageddon.
Click to expand...


God is Invincible.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Heavens no!



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> Are you trying to say that the Palestinians, the native citizens of Palestine, living on their own land inside their own international borders do not have the right to self determination without external interference?


*(COMMENT)*

I'm saying that the Arab Palestinian has done an extremely poor job of attempting to implement their right of self-determination.

Just to stand-up and say you are a nation, a sovereign entity, is not enough.  The nation has to be self-governing, with the ability to stand on its own.  It has to achieve this in some manner that locks step with the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  Just shooting a bunch of guns, and waving a bunch of flags is simply not enough.  The Arab Palestinian must build a nation that contributes to the maintenance of regional and international peace and security.  By any standard, regionally, the Arab Palestinian has not done that --- not even close.

And what you insist as the international borders of Palestine are not recognized by anyone other than the Jihadist and Fedayeen; not even by the Arab League and PLO.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Heavens no!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> Are you trying to say that the Palestinians, the native citizens of Palestine, living on their own land inside their own international borders do not have the right to self determination without external interference?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm saying that the Arab Palestinian has done an extremely poor job of attempting to implement their right of self-determination.
> 
> Just to stand-up and say you are a nation, a sovereign entity, is not enough.  The nation has to be self-governing, with the ability to stand on its own.  It has to achieve this in some manner that locks step with the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  Just shooting a bunch of guns, and waving a bunch of flags is simply not enough.  The Arab Palestinian must build a nation that contributes to the maintenance of regional and international peace and security.  By any standard, regionally, the Arab Palestinian has not done that --- not even close.
> 
> And what you insist as the international borders of Palestine are not recognized by anyone other than the Jihadist and Fedayeen; not even by the Arab League and PLO.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> Just to stand-up and say you are a nation, a sovereign entity, is not enough. The nation has to be self-governing, with the ability to stand on its own.



How is it supposed to do that when a bunch of assholes have it under illegal military occupation?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I thought you knew!  Magic --- You have to rub the lamp.






P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to stand-up and say you are a nation, a sovereign entity, is not enough. The nation has to be self-governing, with the ability to stand on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it supposed to do that when a bunch of assholes have it under illegal military occupation?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Sorry --- I just couldn't pass that up.

Neither side can magically go back in the past and fix the mistakes they have made.  All the people of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) can do now is move forward in terms of peace.  That means dismantling their terrorist arms associations and establish normal relations; seriously considering the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter.  These are the cornerstones of greatest importance to the Arab Palestinians in the maintenance of regional and international peace. 

It is that simple.  You would be surprised at how many nations would chip in to help if the Arab Palestinian abandon the HAMAS Covenant and Palestinian National Charter; divesting themselves of all forms of aggression and dropping the attitude that "by any means necessary" is an appropriate political posture.

Of course, if that were to happen, someone would be canonized.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I thought you knew!  Magic --- You have to rub the lamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to stand-up and say you are a nation, a sovereign entity, is not enough. The nation has to be self-governing, with the ability to stand on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it supposed to do that when a bunch of assholes have it under illegal military occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sorry --- I just couldn't pass that up.
> 
> Neither side can magically go back in the past and fix the mistakes they have made.  All the people of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) can do now is move forward in terms of peace.  That means dismantling their terrorist arms associations and establish normal relations; seriously considering the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter.  These are the cornerstones of greatest importance to the Arab Palestinians in the maintenance of regional and international peace.
> 
> It is that simple.  You would be surprised at how many nations would chip in to help if the Arab Palestinian abandon the HAMAS Covenant and Palestinian National Charter; divesting themselves of all forms of aggression and dropping the attitude that "by any means necessary" is an appropriate political posture.
> 
> Of course, if that were to happen, someone would be canonized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco,

Are you saying that the Palestinians who were attacked by the Zionists a hundred years ago should surrender, disarm, and hold their hand out to Israel for whatever few crumbs of their own country they might get?


----------



## pbel

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I thought you knew!  Magic --- You have to rub the lamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​How is it supposed to do that when a bunch of assholes have it under illegal military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sorry --- I just couldn't pass that up.
> 
> Neither side can magically go back in the past and fix the mistakes they have made.  All the people of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) can do now is move forward in terms of peace.  That means dismantling their terrorist arms associations and establish normal relations; seriously considering the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter.  These are the cornerstones of greatest importance to the Arab Palestinians in the maintenance of regional and international peace.
> 
> It is that simple.  You would be surprised at how many nations would chip in to help if the Arab Palestinian abandon the HAMAS Covenant and Palestinian National Charter; divesting themselves of all forms of aggression and dropping the attitude that "by any means necessary" is an appropriate political posture.
> 
> Of course, if that were to happen, someone would be canonized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> Are you saying that the Palestinians who were attacked by the Zionists a hundred years ago should surrender, disarm, and hold their hand out to Israel for whatever few crumbs of their own country they might get?
Click to expand...


Of course Tinnie: Noblesse oblige


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

BLUF:  In a word:  Yes!



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> Are you saying that the Palestinians who were attacked by the Zionists a hundred years ago should surrender, disarm, and hold their hand out to Israel for whatever few crumbs of their own country they might get?


*(COMMENT)*

A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.  There was no invasion, no attack, no assumption of anything.  And we could argue this all day long.  You have your mind-set.

But, if you say a 100 years, so be it.  Look at it logically.  If you _(the Arab Palestinian)_ could not win in all that time, there is something wrong _(aptitude, intelligence, divine intervention --- something)_.  Whatever it is, you have to ask yourself:

Is it in the best interest of the people, their future, and their development to continue?
Do you want to corrupt each successive generation, to live the way they live now with no reasonable expectation of a prosperous nation?
OR --- do you want to build a healthy and prosperous nation that each successive generation can be proud of, pass-on the legacy of health, wealth and prosperity?

I think it is time that, no matter what the grievance, start acting either like a nation and build their heritage --- or --- ask to be annexed by Egypt and Jordan.

But this slow and agonizing death of a nation and people is not in the best interest of the people or their descendants.

Just my thought.  Step back and look to the good of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Are you saying that the Palestinians who were attacked by the Zionists a hundred years ago should surrender, disarm, and hold their hand out to Israel for whatever few crumbs of their own country they might get?_"


Yes. The other way really isn't getting them anywhere, is it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.



Bullcrap, Rocco.

Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists?

Or...

Did the Zionists go to Palestine to take over the country?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap, Rocco.
> 
> Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Did the Zionists go to Palestine to take over the country?
Click to expand...


Or...

Is Tinny a Revisionist?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap, Rocco.
> 
> Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Did the Zionists go to Palestine to take over the country?
Click to expand...


Wow such Palestinian propaganda. Why do you always bring that it was the Zionists that came to Palestine?? What does that matter, specially since you dont know why they came???
Again, they were invited and their immigration fascilitated by the British because of them potentially having their own country one day. They were suffering severe anti Semitism in Europe and needed to get out of there. Thank goodness the Brits recognized this. 
Also, there was no country to take over, that is just a lie you keep repeating because even though you know Im right, without the 'taking over their country' propaganda lie, your whole agenda is shattered.


----------



## toastman

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap, Rocco.
> 
> Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Did the Zionists go to Palestine to take over the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...
> 
> Is Tinny a Revisionist?
Click to expand...


Im starting to believe hes getting paid to spread anti Zionist lies. There's no way someone could make up the crap that he has and parrot it so many times


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head...I argue on these boards that only a real amicable peace deal blessed by the Arab League that has offered full recognition and trade can save Israel...Israel ignores the long term threat of attritional wars that have thus far been successful against all previous invaders.
> 
> Sure, Rocco, Toast, and the rest of the Zionuts prefer walls and war. The Christian Crusaders tried this, they lost in 300 years of constant vigilance and cold wars.
> 
> If Israel controls E. Jerusalem, there will never be peace...
> 
> They can wait and die fighting, they have done that because their Religion is their guide...
> 
> They will never bow!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont prefer walls liar, I prefer peace AND security for Israel.
> 
> The problem with leftytards like you is that you could care less about Israels security and that you underestimate the true intentions of many Palestinians and the Arab world.
> 
> Jerusalem will never be divided again.
> 
> Comprende??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with dummies like you is how invincible Israel is: Just keep a ticket read for a quick escape...before a nuke befalls you on your self-created Armageddon.
Click to expand...


Yes, nuking Israel is the only way to get then to comply with what is being asked of them.
How desperate and angry do you have to be Pbel to bring that up the way you did. I didnt mean to get under your skin, relax dummie 

And I never said Israel in invincible nor do I believe that. Nice try.
Actually, it was pretty pathetic. 
Now, where were we??
Oh Ya! 

JERUSALEM WILL NEVER BE DIVIDED AGAIN. 

NOW do you understand?????


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> A misinterpretation of the obvious.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not mention Palestine even once.  It does not alter the Palestine Order in Council or the Mandate, or the interpretation of Article 22 of the LoN Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under the Treaty of Lausanne, the territory now discussed, formerly the Mandate of Palestine, as designated in Part I, Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council, was under the general heading of SECTION I, PART I, TERRITORIAL CLAUSES, ARTICLE 3 - From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:
> 
> (1) With Syria:
> (2) With Iraq:
> This Palestinian fallacy was discussed at length in Post #87 _(U.N. rights inquiry says Israel must remove settlers)_.  And the issue of "nationality" was laid down in the Treaty of Lausanne in SECTION II  - NATIONALITY - ARTICLES 30 thru 36. Yes there was a choice to be made, but "Palestinian" was not one of the choices.  Hence, the need for Order in Council clarification:
> 
> And in reading the order, one must remember what is being said when they use the word "Palestine."
> 
> 
> Finally, it is important to remember the 1948 interpretation of Palestine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed. -
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From beginning to end - Palestine _(which describes the *Mandate for Palestine* as the assigned interpretation)_ was nothing more than a "legal entity" and never a sovereign state until its Declaration of Independence in 1988; and even then, as a self-governing institution, under a stable government, able to stand alone, it is still arguable.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> Are you trying to say that the Palestinians, the native citizens of Palestine, living on their own land inside their own international borders do not have the right to self determination without external interference?
Click to expand...


Holy deflection Spiderman!!! (You can use Batman).

What Rocco is 'saying' is pretty clear. I fail to see how he could have posted what he did more clearly


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I thought you knew!  Magic --- You have to rub the lamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​How is it supposed to do that when a bunch of assholes have it under illegal military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sorry --- I just couldn't pass that up.
> 
> Neither side can magically go back in the past and fix the mistakes they have made.  All the people of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) can do now is move forward in terms of peace.  That means dismantling their terrorist arms associations and establish normal relations; seriously considering the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter.  These are the cornerstones of greatest importance to the Arab Palestinians in the maintenance of regional and international peace.
> 
> It is that simple.  You would be surprised at how many nations would chip in to help if the Arab Palestinian abandon the HAMAS Covenant and Palestinian National Charter; divesting themselves of all forms of aggression and dropping the attitude that "by any means necessary" is an appropriate political posture.
> 
> Of course, if that were to happen, someone would be canonized.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> Are you saying that the Palestinians who were attacked by the Zionists a hundred years ago should surrender, disarm, and hold their hand out to Israel for whatever few crumbs of their own country they might get?
Click to expand...


How can one person be so full of shit???  
What attack are you talking about? Got a link??


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Wow such Palestinian propaganda.


It's not propaganda.



toastman said:


> Why do you always bring that it was the Zionists that came to Palestine??


Because that's exactly what they did. 



toastman said:


> What does that matter, specially since you dont know why they came???


That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got here.



toastman said:


> Again, they were invited and their immigration fascilitated by the British because of them potentially having their own country one day.


And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.




toastman said:


> They were suffering severe anti Semitism in Europe and needed to get out of there.


That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got here. 



toastman said:


> Thank goodness the Brits recognized this.


They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.



toastman said:


> Also, there was no country to take over, that is just a lie you keep repeating because even though you know Im right, without the 'taking over their country' propaganda lie, your whole agenda is shattered.


No takeover?

Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow such Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always bring that it was the Zionists that came to Palestine??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got here.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> So? Irrevant
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got here.
> I never said it did. Irrelevant
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness the Brits recognized this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> Irrelevant to what we are discussing.
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no country to take over, that is just a lie you keep repeating because even though you know Im right, without the 'taking over their country' propaganda lie, your whole agenda is shattered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun
> 
> Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over. Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow such Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got here.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> So? Irrevant
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got here.
> I never said it did. Irrelevant
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> Irrelevant to what we are discussing.
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no country to take over, that is just a lie you keep repeating because even though you know Im right, without the 'taking over their country' propaganda lie, your whole agenda is shattered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun
> 
> *Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over.* Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now all you have to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that load of crap.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got here.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> So? Irrevant
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got here.
> I never said it did. Irrelevant
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> Irrelevant to what we are discussing.
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun
> 
> *Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over.* Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now all you have to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that load of crap.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get them to believe the truth? Im sure most of them are not as duded as you and would probably want you to stop making them look so bad .
> 
> I cant believe you are not capable of understanding something so simple. It's astonishing Tinmore.
> 
> Now all YOU got to do is convince the world of tour lie. Good luck !
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

Jews winning is intolerable.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now all you have to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that load of crap.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them to believe the truth? Im sure most of them are not as duded as you and would probably want you to stop making them look so bad .
> 
> I cant believe you are not capable of understanding something so simple. It's astonishing Tinmore.
> 
> Now all YOU got to do is convince the world of tour lie. Good luck !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Palestine was not the Palestinians country than whose was it?
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now all you have to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that load of crap.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them to believe the truth? Im sure most of them are not as duded as you and would probably want you to stop making them look so bad .
> 
> I cant believe you are not capable of understanding something so simple. It's astonishing Tinmore.
> 
> Now all YOU got to do is convince the world of tour lie. Good luck !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World polls believe that a two state solution to the 67 armistice lines...The UN recognized Palestine with E. Jerusalem as their Capital...Sure you'll bray like a donkey "screaming we control, F the world, take it from us..." Nice Jingos, remember to keep a ticket for a quick  flight out...
> 
> Just in case.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were expressing characteristics of a unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners _(Xenophobia)_.  But we know that's not true.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap, Rocco.
> 
> Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Did the Zionists go to Palestine to take over the country?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Neither!

The Zionist were invited to immigrate.  Immigration is not the same thing as attacking.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yeah, what kind of question is this?



P F Tinmore said:


> If Palestine was not the Palestinians country than whose was it?


*(COMMENT)*

It was a legal entity under civil administration _(originally under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ of the UK assigned by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo.

A Mandate!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get them to believe the truth? Im sure most of them are not as duded as you and would probably want you to stop making them look so bad .
> 
> I cant believe you are not capable of understanding something so simple. It's astonishing Tinmore.
> 
> Now all YOU got to do is convince the world of tour lie. Good luck !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World polls believe that a two state solution to the 67 armistice lines...The UN recognized Palestine with E. Jerusalem as their Capital...Sure you'll bray like a donkey "screaming we control, F the world, take it from us..." Nice Jingos, remember to keep a ticket for a quick  flight out...
> 
> Just in case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you're IQ is not much higher the your shoe size Pbel, but Tinmore and I were discussing a different period, way before the UN recognized Palestine based on the 67 borders. I dont usually give advice to idiots but, delete your post now before anyone else sees it. Theres still time!
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were expressing characteristics of a unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners _(Xenophobia)_.  But we know that's not true.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A century ago, clearly the "Zionist" were not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap, Rocco.
> 
> Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists?
> 
> Or...
> 
> Did the Zionists go to Palestine to take over the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Neither!
> 
> The Zionist were invited to immigrate.  Immigration is not the same thing as attacking.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Immigrate for what purpose?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yeah, what kind of question is this?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Palestine was not the Palestinians country than whose was it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was a legal entity under civil administration _(originally under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ of the UK assigned by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
> 
> A Mandate!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was assigned to Palestine. Palestine exists separate from the mandate.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow such Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always bring that it was the Zionists that came to Palestine??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got *here*.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> 
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got *here*.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness the Brits recognized this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no country to take over, that is just a lie you keep repeating because even though you know Im right, without the 'taking over their country' propaganda lie, your whole agenda is shattered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.
Click to expand...

*Hmmmmmmmmmmm...*

Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I may have to call-in Hercule Poirot for this one.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist were invited to immigrate.  Immigration is not the same thing as attacking.
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrate for what purpose?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Mandate had three critical charms to it.

(i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home; 
(ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and 
(iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​
Jewish immigration was encouraged for Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.  (_Article 4, Mandate of Palestine_)

This was the first critical task set down by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow such Palestinian propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got *here*.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> 
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got *here*.
> 
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, there was no country to take over, that is just a lie you keep repeating because even though you know Im right, without the 'taking over their country' propaganda lie, your whole agenda is shattered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hmmmmmmmmmmm...*
> 
> Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.

The right to return does not depend on the reason for leaving.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got *here*.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> 
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got *here*.
> 
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> 
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.
> 
> 
> 
> *Hmmmmmmmmmmm...*
> 
> Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> The right to return does not depend on the reason for leaving.
Click to expand...


de facto...it does NOW!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I may have to call-in Hercule Poirot for this one.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist were invited to immigrate.  Immigration is not the same thing as attacking.
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrate for what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate had three critical charms to it.
> 
> (i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;​
Click to expand...


Were the natives consulted about this or was it a foreign imposed mandate?



> (ii) the creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions; and


What conditions were created that secured  the development of self-governing institutions for the natives?



> (iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.


Could you elaborate?



> Jewish immigration was encouraged for Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.  (_Article 4, Mandate of Palestine_)
> 
> This was the first critical task set down by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> Because that's exactly what they did.
> 
> That's personal!  What matters, is what they did when they got *here*.
> 
> And they constantly violated immigration levels set by the British.
> 
> 
> That doesn't justify making the Pals suffer when they got *here*.
> 
> They also recognized the jewish terrorist group that bombed their hotel.
> 
> No takeover?
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 indigenous arabs that were driven from their homes by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.
> 
> 
> 
> *Hmmmmmmmmmmm...*
> 
> Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> The right to return does not depend on the reason for leaving.
Click to expand...


It depends on Israel allowing them to return or not. Guess which one it is??


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I may have to call-in Hercule Poirot for this one.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigrate for what purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate had three critical charms to it.
> 
> (i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the natives consulted about this or was it a foreign imposed mandate?
> 
> 
> What conditions were created that secured  the development of self-governing institutions for the natives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (iii) the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish immigration was encouraged for Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.  (_Article 4, Mandate of Palestine_)
> 
> This was the first critical task set down by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The first two questions are so stupid. Why is it that whenever Rocco answers your questions and dismantles your points you start to ask questions that are almost impossible to answer


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I may have to call-in Hercule Poirot for this one.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate had three critical charms to it.
> 
> (i) the creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home;​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were the natives consulted about this or was it a foreign imposed mandate?
> 
> 
> What conditions were created that secured  the development of self-governing institutions for the natives?
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish immigration was encouraged for Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.  (_Article 4, Mandate of Palestine_)
> 
> This was the first critical task set down by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first two questions are so stupid. Why is it that whenever Rocco answers your questions and dismantles your points *you start to ask questions that are almost impossible to answer*​
Click to expand...



I must. Nobody can (or wants to) answer them.​


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the natives consulted about this or was it a foreign imposed mandate?
> 
> 
> What conditions were created that secured  the development of self-governing institutions for the natives?
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first two questions are so stupid. Why is it that whenever Rocco answers your questions and dismantles your points *you start to ask questions that are almost impossible to answer*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must. Nobody can (or wants to) answer them.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. It makes it look like you are trying to take attention away from your points that were dismantled


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first two questions are so stupid. Why is it that whenever Rocco answers your questions and dismantles your points *you start to ask questions that are almost impossible to answer*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must. Nobody can (or wants to) answer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It makes it look like you are trying to take attention away from your points that were dismantled
Click to expand...


Questions are asked to clarify information.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You get this wrong consistently.  One more time.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what kind of question is this?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Palestine was not the Palestinians country than whose was it?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was a legal entity under civil administration _(originally under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ of the UK assigned by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
> 
> A Mandate!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was assigned to Palestine. Palestine exists separate from the mandate.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Remembering that:



			
				PART I -  The Palestine Order in Council said:
			
		

> *PRELIMINARY.*
> *Title --- *
> 
> 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council



To say "Palestine" is exactly equal to saying "Mandate for Palestine."  It describes both a protocol and a place.

Palestine was defined at the leisure of the Mandate.  It was not a defined territory previously under under some sovereignty by a people known as Palestinians.



			
				THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920 said:
			
		

> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within *such boundaries as may be fixed* by them;
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention



It had no boundaries until the Allied Powers fixed them.  

You are quibbling with words to fit your agenda.  You conveniently forget that the: *"Mandate for Palestine" = "Palestine"*​
It was not a territory that belonged to "Palestinians" --- nor does the word imply that.  It is a territory arbitrarily defined by the Allied Powers for political purposes.  It does not describe a territory with a defined population or boundary, except as the Allied Powers found convenient.

Do you understand? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You get this wrong consistently.  One more time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what kind of question is this?
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was a legal entity under civil administration _(originally under the title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration)_ of the UK assigned by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
> 
> A Mandate!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was assigned to Palestine. Palestine exists separate from the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remembering that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PART I -  The Palestine Order in Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PRELIMINARY.*
> *Title --- *
> 
> 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Palestine Order in Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say "Palestine" is exactly equal to saying "Mandate for Palestine."  It describes both a protocol and a place.
> 
> Palestine was defined at the leisure of the Mandate.  It was not a defined territory previously under under some sovereignty by a people known as Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within *such boundaries as may be fixed* by them;
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It had no boundaries until the Allied Powers fixed them.
> 
> You are quibbling with words to fit your agenda.  You conveniently forget that the: *"Mandate for Palestine" = "Palestine"*​
> It was not a territory that belonged to "Palestinians" --- nor does the word imply that.  It is a territory arbitrarily defined by the Allied Powers for political purposes.  It does not describe a territory with a defined population or boundary, except as the Allied Powers found convenient.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Then why was Palestine still there after the mandate left?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Wow!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get this wrong consistently.  One more time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was not Palestine. The mandate was assigned to Palestine. Palestine exists separate from the mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remembering that:
> 
> 
> 
> To say "Palestine" is exactly equal to saying "Mandate for Palestine."  It describes both a protocol and a place.
> 
> Palestine was defined at the leisure of the Mandate.  It was not a defined territory previously under under some sovereignty by a people known as Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within *such boundaries as may be fixed* by them;
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It had no boundaries until the Allied Powers fixed them.
> 
> You are quibbling with words to fit your agenda.  You conveniently forget that the: *"Mandate for Palestine" = "Palestine"*​
> It was not a territory that belonged to "Palestinians" --- nor does the word imply that.  It is a territory arbitrarily defined by the Allied Powers for political purposes.  It does not describe a territory with a defined population or boundary, except as the Allied Powers found convenient.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why was Palestine still there after the mandate left?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It transitioned to the Successor Government in reduced size as the Former Mandate but still under the Administration of the UN Trusteeship _(successor the the older Mandate System)_.  It was a legal entity, but not sovereign or self-governing; except for the Jewish State - Israel.  That is until November 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

Palestinian sour grapes for not being as savvy and prepared and courageous and committed as the Jews in 1948... the Pals screwed-up and they know it, and they've been trying to cover that up, at-law, for the past 66 years - and failing.


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get this wrong consistently.  One more time.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remembering that:
> 
> 
> 
> To say "Palestine" is exactly equal to saying "Mandate for Palestine."  It describes both a protocol and a place.
> 
> Palestine was defined at the leisure of the Mandate.  It was not a defined territory previously under under some sovereignty by a people known as Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> It had no boundaries until the Allied Powers fixed them.
> 
> You are quibbling with words to fit your agenda.  You conveniently forget that the: *"Mandate for Palestine" = "Palestine"*​
> It was not a territory that belonged to "Palestinians" --- nor does the word imply that.  It is a territory arbitrarily defined by the Allied Powers for political purposes.  It does not describe a territory with a defined population or boundary, except as the Allied Powers found convenient.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why was Palestine still there after the mandate left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It transitioned to the Successor Government in reduced size as the Former Mandate but still under the Administration of the UN Trusteeship _(successor the the older Mandate System)_.  It was a legal entity, but not sovereign or self-governing; except for the Jewish State - Israel.  That is until November 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I guess you just don't get it...No-one in the Islamic world gives any credence to your Western Colonial interpretations...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why was Palestine still there after the mandate left?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It transitioned to the Successor Government in reduced size as the Former Mandate but still under the Administration of the UN Trusteeship _(successor the the older Mandate System)_.  It was a legal entity, but not sovereign or self-governing; except for the Jewish State - Israel.  That is until November 1988.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you just don't get it...No-one in the Islamic world gives any credence to your Western Colonial interpretations...
Click to expand...





 And I guess you don't get it..... No one in the west gives a shit about what the illiterate arabs say, the land is Israel and will stay so for the next millenia


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Irrelevant. The right to return does not depend on the reason for leaving._"


True.

The _Right of Return_ depends upon whether or not the Israelis say it's OK for you to return.

The Israelis have said "No".

"No" means "No".

You can take whatever 'law' you care to cite and try to twist to your advantage, and use it to supplement your supply of toilet paper.

'Cause _Return_ just ain't gonna happen.

Not unless you're hiding a Superior Military up your sleeve that you haven't brought to the poker table yet.

Time to wake-up and smell the coffee... time to rejoin the Real World... time to move on, to some other place that'll take you... so that you and yours can get on with life.

Sixty-six years of living in a world of Make-Believe and childish, petulant squealing over something that's never gonna happen... bore, bore, bore.


----------



## SAYIT

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Irrelevant. The right to return does not depend on the reason for leaving._"
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> The _Right of Return_ depends upon whether or not the Israelis say it's OK for you to return.
> 
> The Israelis have said "No".
> 
> "No" means "No".
> 
> You can take whatever 'law' you care to cite and try to twist to your advantage, and use it to supplement your supply of toilet paper.
> 
> 'Cause _Return_ just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Not unless you're hiding a Superior Military up your sleeve that you haven't brought to the poker table yet.
> 
> Time to wake-up and smell the coffee... time to rejoin the Real World... time to move on, to some other place that'll take you... so that you and yours can get on with life.
> 
> Sixty-six years of living in a world of Make-Believe and childish, petulant squealing over something that's never gonna happen... bore, bore, bore.
Click to expand...


Keyboard warriors like Tinhorn and GP don't care about the plight of those hapless Palestinian "refugees." They would rather another 666 wasted years than a peaceful solution.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

And of course, you are more right then you might think.



pbel said:


> I guess you just don't get it...No-one in the Islamic world gives any credence to your Western Colonial interpretations...


*(COMMENT)*

None of the Mandates represented any form of Western Colonization.

As for the interpretation, nearly all the references you used, are authored by one or more of the original WWI Allied Powers.  What interpretation should be used?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> And of course, you are more right then you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you just don't get it...No-one in the Islamic world gives any credence to your Western Colonial interpretations...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> None of the Mandates represented any form of Western Colonization.
> 
> As for the interpretation, nearly all the references you used, are authored by one or more of the original WWI Allied Powers.  What interpretation should be used?Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Oh, I see people from the European diaspora and later Russia are not Colonialist, I see, they are just land thieves.


The conquered peoples who were indigenous for 2,000 years, try too see their point of view....


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see people from the European diaspora and later Russia are not Colonialist, I see, they are just land thieves.
> 
> 
> The conquered peoples who were indigenous for 2,000 years, try too see their point of view....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get over it already, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The little maggot chimes in. Wipe your nose and then you will know why no one is over it!
Click to expand...


Pbel, I would like to ask you a question.  We all know that the original Christians were in many Middle East countries way before the Arabs left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries where they forced these Christians into accepting Islam and killed many who refused.  How is it that you are not concerned with the descendants of these people whose ancestors were lucky to survive this onslaught -- the Copts, the Assyrians, etc -- when they can't practice their religious beliefs in peace and so many of them have been murdered with their churches destroyed?  Meanwhile, early travelers to the Holy Land had reported that they didn't see many Arabs, mainly bedouins, and Winston Churchill reported (probably with reports coming back from the officials in the area) that the Arabs were swarming into the areas from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them.  I am sure you are aware of what is happening with regard for the poor people from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East with their leaving in great numbers their countries and going to other countries for jobs in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, the same as you are aware of the millions of Hispanics who have crossed our own southern border for jobs.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get over it already, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The little maggot chimes in. Wipe your nose and then you will know why no one is over it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, I would like to ask you a question.  We all know that the original Christians were in many Middle East countries way before the Arabs left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries where they forced these Christians into accepting Islam and killed many who refused.  How is it that you are not concerned with the descendants of these people whose ancestors were lucky to survive this onslaught -- the Copts, the Assyrians, etc -- when they can't practice their religious beliefs in peace and so many of them have been murdered with their churches destroyed?  Meanwhile, early travelers to the Holy Land had reported that they didn't see many Arabs, mainly bedouins, and Winston Churchill reported (probably with reports coming back from the officials in the area) that the Arabs were swarming into the areas from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them.  I am sure you are aware of what is happening with regard for the poor people from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East with their leaving in great numbers their countries and going to other countries for jobs in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, the same as you are aware of the millions of Hispanics who have crossed our own southern border for jobs.
Click to expand...


Sally, I like Jews a lot more than the ego-alien culture of Islam, but what can we do"? The last thing would be to create a Western outpost in the middle of their turf, it suicidal in the long run.

The injustices and invasions you speak of happened 1500 years ago and continue today by Israel and Muslims. But hey have no relevance to this conflict...Those people Christians and Jews converted to Islam by the sword don't want to changes their religions today, in fact they lived next to the Palestinians peacefully until Zionism invaded the land, only today forceful invasions are against International norms...

If the Arabs offer peace and recognition then half a loaf to the 67 borders is just.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The little maggot chimes in. Wipe your nose and then you will know why no one is over it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, I would like to ask you a question.  We all know that the original Christians were in many Middle East countries way before the Arabs left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries where they forced these Christians into accepting Islam and killed many who refused.  How is it that you are not concerned with the descendants of these people whose ancestors were lucky to survive this onslaught -- the Copts, the Assyrians, etc -- when they can't practice their religious beliefs in peace and so many of them have been murdered with their churches destroyed?  Meanwhile, early travelers to the Holy Land had reported that they didn't see many Arabs, mainly bedouins, and Winston Churchill reported (probably with reports coming back from the officials in the area) that the Arabs were swarming into the areas from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them.  I am sure you are aware of what is happening with regard for the poor people from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East with their leaving in great numbers their countries and going to other countries for jobs in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, the same as you are aware of the millions of Hispanics who have crossed our own southern border for jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sally, I like Jews a lot more than the ego-alien culture of Islam, but what can we do"? The last thing would be to create a Western outpost in the middle of their turf, it suicidal in the long run.
> 
> The injustices and invasions you speak of happened 1500 years ago and continue today by Israel and Muslims. But hey have no relevance to this conflict...Those people Christians and Jews converted to Islam by the sword don't want to changes their religions today, in fact they lived next to the Palestinians peacefully until Zionism invaded the land, only today forceful invasions are against International norms...
> 
> If the Arabs offer peace and recognition then half a loaf to the 67 borders is just.
Click to expand...


Well, Pbel, the invasion by Islam might have happened over 1500 years ago, but today, right now, in the Middle East the descendents of those early Christians who were lucky enough to survive are being harassed and murdered because of their religion.  Naturally, the reports of the early travelers saying they there were very few Arabs in the Holy Land mean nothing to you.  You would never accept the fact that most of these Arabs came from surrounding areas for jobs.  Why do you think we see so many different people coming here for jobs?  Do you really think they all are coming here for political asylum?  Do you ever read about the poor Africans who try to get to Europe on vessels that are not seaworthy (and many drown) because they want jobs? Meanwhile, Pbel just doesn't want to see that the Arabs do not want to give up one tiny piece of land in the Middle East, but of course in Pbel's mind, it is all the Zionists fault.  The charters of Fatah and Hamas say they will welcome being at peace with the Jews, don't they, Pbel?  I certainly wish you can tell us why you are so obsessed with the "Zionists" when there is so much going on in the rest of the Middle East.  Why are you so silent?  People are being murdered all the time because of their religion or the sect they belong too; yet it has always been more important for you to talk about the "Zionists."


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, I would like to ask you a question.  We all know that the original Christians were in many Middle East countries way before the Arabs left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries where they forced these Christians into accepting Islam and killed many who refused.  How is it that you are not concerned with the descendants of these people whose ancestors were lucky to survive this onslaught -- the Copts, the Assyrians, etc -- when they can't practice their religious beliefs in peace and so many of them have been murdered with their churches destroyed?  Meanwhile, early travelers to the Holy Land had reported that they didn't see many Arabs, mainly bedouins, and Winston Churchill reported (probably with reports coming back from the officials in the area) that the Arabs were swarming into the areas from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them.  I am sure you are aware of what is happening with regard for the poor people from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East with their leaving in great numbers their countries and going to other countries for jobs in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, the same as you are aware of the millions of Hispanics who have crossed our own southern border for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, I like Jews a lot more than the ego-alien culture of Islam, but what can we do"? The last thing would be to create a Western outpost in the middle of their turf, it suicidal in the long run.
> 
> The injustices and invasions you speak of happened 1500 years ago and continue today by Israel and Muslims. But hey have no relevance to this conflict...Those people Christians and Jews converted to Islam by the sword don't want to changes their religions today, in fact they lived next to the Palestinians peacefully until Zionism invaded the land, only today forceful invasions are against International norms...
> 
> If the Arabs offer peace and recognition then half a loaf to the 67 borders is just.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, the invasion by Islam might have happened over 1500 years ago, but today, right now, in the Middle East the descendents of those early Christians who were lucky enough to survive are being harassed and murdered because of their religion.  Naturally, the reports of the early travelers saying they there were very few Arabs in the Holy Land mean nothing to you.  You would never accept the fact that most of these Arabs came from surrounding areas for jobs.  Why do you think we see so many different people coming here for jobs?  Do you really think they all are coming here for political asylum?  Do you ever read about the poor Africans who try to get to Europe on vessels that are not seaworthy (and many drown) because they want jobs? Meanwhile, Pbel just doesn't want to see that the Arabs do not want to give up one tiny piece of land in the Middle East, but of course in Pbel's mind, it is all the Zionists fault.  The charters of Fatah and Hamas say they will welcome being at peace with the Jews, don't they, Pbel?  I certainly wish you can tell us why you are so obsessed with the "Zionists" when there is so much going on in the rest of the Middle East.  Why are you so silent?  People are being murdered all the time because of their religion or the sect they belong too; yet it has always been more important for you to talk about the "Zionists."
Click to expand...


God, I hope Israel is not paying you to post...Yakety yak, overboard redundancy, two sentences in and bored we go...The point being lost in a bag of hot air...

What is your point? Are you saying we should discuss Biafra or Sudan in the Palestinian Israeli board? Discuss obsessions and delusions?

What is your point in one sentence.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...


Bullshit!

Nobody leaves a place they've been living at for generations, just because someone asks them to.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over. Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.


You got time issues, dude.

It was the taking over of villages, that started the war.


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over. Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> You got time issues, dude.
> 
> It was the taking over of villages, that started the war.
Click to expand...

No, no, no,Billo. No, no, no.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, I like Jews a lot more than the ego-alien culture of Islam, but what can we do"? The last thing would be to create a Western outpost in the middle of their turf, it suicidal in the long run.
> 
> The injustices and invasions you speak of happened 1500 years ago and continue today by Israel and Muslims. But hey have no relevance to this conflict...Those people Christians and Jews converted to Islam by the sword don't want to changes their religions today, in fact they lived next to the Palestinians peacefully until Zionism invaded the land, only today forceful invasions are against International norms...
> 
> If the Arabs offer peace and recognition then half a loaf to the 67 borders is just.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, the invasion by Islam might have happened over 1500 years ago, but today, right now, in the Middle East the descendents of those early Christians who were lucky enough to survive are being harassed and murdered because of their religion.  Naturally, the reports of the early travelers saying they there were very few Arabs in the Holy Land mean nothing to you.  You would never accept the fact that most of these Arabs came from surrounding areas for jobs.  Why do you think we see so many different people coming here for jobs?  Do you really think they all are coming here for political asylum?  Do you ever read about the poor Africans who try to get to Europe on vessels that are not seaworthy (and many drown) because they want jobs? Meanwhile, Pbel just doesn't want to see that the Arabs do not want to give up one tiny piece of land in the Middle East, but of course in Pbel's mind, it is all the Zionists fault.  The charters of Fatah and Hamas say they will welcome being at peace with the Jews, don't they, Pbel?  I certainly wish you can tell us why you are so obsessed with the "Zionists" when there is so much going on in the rest of the Middle East.  Why are you so silent?  People are being murdered all the time because of their religion or the sect they belong too; yet it has always been more important for you to talk about the "Zionists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, I hope Israel is not paying you to post...Yakety yak, overboard redundancy, two sentences in and bored we go...The point being lost in a bag of hot air...
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying we should discuss Biafra or Sudan in the Palestinian Israeli board? Discuss obsessions and delusions?
> 
> What is your point in one sentence.
Click to expand...


Well I certainly hope that you didn't take money for your silly poems when you became a Dhimmi.  Let's face it, Pbel, anyone who knows your history during the years of you posting realizes that you are not interested in the Middle East as a whole, but are only interested in the "Zionists."  Do you realize that just in this year alone, thousands and thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East?  I know you can't involve the "Zionists" in this, but these people are still dead.  Do you really think that those who did the killings actually want to see Jews governing a little piece of land in the Middle East?


----------



## flacaltenn

Moderation Message:

Second moderator intervention today for no-content flaming posts.
Please stay on topic.. 
If you have deleted posts on the past couple pages, be warned that 
future infractions are possible.

flacaltenn


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Nobody leaves a place they've been living at for generations, just because someone asks them to.
Click to expand...

You're saying so doesn't make it true...

Some of the 700,000 were truly driven out by Jewish militias for the sake of driving them out, or for land-gain, or for tactical or strategic advantage, or just to get them the hell out of the Jews' hair during upcoming combat operations...

Some of the 700,000 were forced out by combat operations between the two sides, nearby to their homes...

Some of the 700,000 skeddaddled in fear rather than fight, long before the shooting started...

Some of the 700,000 left because their own Arab-Muslim religious-militia leaders and their neighbor Arab-States told them to leave, to await the day in the coming weeks when they would push the Jews into the Mediterranean and reclaim all of Old Palestine for the Arab-Muslims of the region...

Some of them were driven out...

Many left for other reasons...

No bullshit...

Truth...

And well-documented, as a number of our colleagues have served-up in recent months, including the video testimony of Arabs who heard such calls when they were made in the 1947-1949 timeframe...

But thank you for playing, Junior... do keep trying... Allah (the Merciful, the Compassionate) loves try-ers, too !


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over. Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> You got time issues, dude.
> 
> It was the taking over of villages, that started the war.
Click to expand...


Liar, there were two wars. The first war was called the Mandatory Palestine civil war which started the day of the partition plan up until the day of the cessation of the mandate. The Arab Israeli war is what followed. So I was saying, the destroying of villages happened during during the wars but a large majority during the Arab Israeli war of 1948 when 5 Arab Armies surrounded the region from all sides and attacked the newly founded state. And yes, the Palestinians took part in this war. And yes, the intention of the vicious Arabs during this war was to push the Jews to the Sea and destroy their newly founded country which was LEGALLY founded when the Jews declared independence. 
And no, the war was not about helping the Palestinians. In fact, many Palestinians were asked to leave their homes but then could not return. Ya, some help those Arabs were  
BTW, the myth is that the Arabs asked the Palestinians to leave the region, but really they were asked to leave to the border areas where the Arabs had set up 'ghettos' for the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> And of course, you are more right then you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you just don't get it...No-one in the Islamic world gives any credence to your Western Colonial interpretations...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> None of the Mandates represented any form of Western Colonization.
> 
> As for the interpretation, nearly all the references you used, are authored by one or more of the original WWI Allied Powers.  What interpretation should be used?Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see people from the European diaspora and later Russia are not Colonialist, I see, they are just land thieves.
> 
> 
> The conquered peoples who were indigenous for 2,000 years, try too see their point of view....
Click to expand...





Just as none of the Egyptians, Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Jordanians were Arabic colonialists just Arabic land thieves and mass murderers. While they were getting their slice of the pie everything was good and happy, but as soon as it looked like the barren desert was to be given to another party they erupted in hatred and fury. 
 The Jews were invited to colonise an empty land by the LEGAL LAND OWNERS as part of the details in the mandate of Palestine.
 Now do show a credible link to prove that the Egyptians, Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Jordanians were there for 2000 years. When even the muslim histories tell of massive enforced migrations into the area by the ottomans because the land was so inhospitable and devoid of human life. Even the Mandate powers state that Arabic migration was rampant in the lead up to the partition of the land.

 Now what about the rights of the indigenous people who had lived and worked the land for 4,500 years facing rape, murder, evictions and brutal oppression for 1500 of those years at the hands of the Arabic land thieves.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The little maggot chimes in. Wipe your nose and then you will know why no one is over it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, I would like to ask you a question.  We all know that the original Christians were in many Middle East countries way before the Arabs left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries where they forced these Christians into accepting Islam and killed many who refused.  How is it that you are not concerned with the descendants of these people whose ancestors were lucky to survive this onslaught -- the Copts, the Assyrians, etc -- when they can't practice their religious beliefs in peace and so many of them have been murdered with their churches destroyed?  Meanwhile, early travelers to the Holy Land had reported that they didn't see many Arabs, mainly bedouins, and Winston Churchill reported (probably with reports coming back from the officials in the area) that the Arabs were swarming into the areas from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them.  I am sure you are aware of what is happening with regard for the poor people from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East with their leaving in great numbers their countries and going to other countries for jobs in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, the same as you are aware of the millions of Hispanics who have crossed our own southern border for jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sally, I like Jews a lot more than the ego-alien culture of Islam, but what can we do"? The last thing would be to create a Western outpost in the middle of their turf, it suicidal in the long run.
> 
> The injustices and invasions you speak of happened 1500 years ago and continue today by Israel and Muslims. But hey have no relevance to this conflict...Those people Christians and Jews converted to Islam by the sword don't want to changes their religions today, in fact they lived next to the Palestinians peacefully until Zionism invaded the land, only today forceful invasions are against International norms...
> 
> If the Arabs offer peace and recognition then half a loaf to the 67 borders is just.
Click to expand...





The muslims have never lived peacefully in their entire existence, their religion is based on violence and fear. The Zionists never invaded the land at all they were invited to migrate, it was the arab muslims that invaded and then a scant 22 years later lost the land. Just look at the turmoil, aggression, hate and violence that is all around the M.E. today and not any one part of it can be blamed on the Jews, Zionists or European colonialists.   BUT it can be blamed on Arabic colonialism and greed coupled with Islamic illiteracy.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sally, I like Jews a lot more than the ego-alien culture of Islam, but what can we do"? The last thing would be to create a Western outpost in the middle of their turf, it suicidal in the long run.
> 
> The injustices and invasions you speak of happened 1500 years ago and continue today by Israel and Muslims. But hey have no relevance to this conflict...Those people Christians and Jews converted to Islam by the sword don't want to changes their religions today, in fact they lived next to the Palestinians peacefully until Zionism invaded the land, only today forceful invasions are against International norms...
> 
> If the Arabs offer peace and recognition then half a loaf to the 67 borders is just.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, the invasion by Islam might have happened over 1500 years ago, but today, right now, in the Middle East the descendents of those early Christians who were lucky enough to survive are being harassed and murdered because of their religion.  Naturally, the reports of the early travelers saying they there were very few Arabs in the Holy Land mean nothing to you.  You would never accept the fact that most of these Arabs came from surrounding areas for jobs.  Why do you think we see so many different people coming here for jobs?  Do you really think they all are coming here for political asylum?  Do you ever read about the poor Africans who try to get to Europe on vessels that are not seaworthy (and many drown) because they want jobs? Meanwhile, Pbel just doesn't want to see that the Arabs do not want to give up one tiny piece of land in the Middle East, but of course in Pbel's mind, it is all the Zionists fault.  The charters of Fatah and Hamas say they will welcome being at peace with the Jews, don't they, Pbel?  I certainly wish you can tell us why you are so obsessed with the "Zionists" when there is so much going on in the rest of the Middle East.  Why are you so silent?  People are being murdered all the time because of their religion or the sect they belong too; yet it has always been more important for you to talk about the "Zionists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, I hope Israel is not paying you to post...Yakety yak, overboard redundancy, two sentences in and bored we go...The point being lost in a bag of hot air...
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying we should discuss Biafra or Sudan in the Palestinian Israeli board? Discuss obsessions and delusions?
> 
> What is your point in one sentence.
Click to expand...





 Not at all but we should discuss truth and honesty and not blood libels and falsehoods. We should stop the belligerent use of the term Zionist for starters and call them what they are Jews. Calling them Zionists does not make your RACIST ANTI SEMITIC HATRED any less obvious, it is recognised as a scam by NAZI RACISTS to hide behind. So lets be honest shall we and put our true cards on the table, I will go first


 The arabs have no legal, moral or cultural rights to the land of Palestine. They consistently show that they do not belong there and are violently opposed to the real owners from having more than them. Their own histories show they were recent migrants to the area and came looking for easy pickings, when they found that the going was tough they packed up and left. The land was removed from ottoman government control by the league of nations and given over to British government control. The mandate was based on agreements with the arabs and it was agreed that the Jews would be given the land of what is now referred to as Palestine as their homeland. Historical fact that the muslims can not deny. The mufti did not want to lose his power base so he fomented terrorist attacks on the Jews and British to force a change, having learnt from his mogul brothers how to do this.

 Your turn


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and, by the way, your magic 700,000 number includes vast numbers of Arabs who left on their own without being driven out...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Nobody leaves a place they've been living at for generations, just because someone asks them to.
Click to expand...





 They do if the only other option is death, which is what was on offer. The people themselves tell the same story how the arab armies asked them to leave the field of battle to return 2 weeks later as the new owners of all the Jewish land and property. For greed people will do anything, and there is none more greedy than a muslim.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to read I said there was no COUNTRY to take over. Taking over villages during a war where the Palestinians joined the the Arabs to destroy Israel and push the Jews to the sea is not taking over a mythical country. BOTH sides were trying to push eachother out, but the Jews won so get over it and stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> You got time issues, dude.
> 
> It was the taking over of villages, that started the war.
Click to expand...





 Not according to the arabs, they stated it was the creation of Israel ON LAND THEY SAW AQS THEIRS that started the war. The reality was the war started way back in 632 at medina when the Jews refused to worship Mohamed as their god.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Text from Youtube description:
According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pbel, the invasion by Islam might have happened over 1500 years ago, but today, right now, in the Middle East the descendents of those early Christians who were lucky enough to survive are being harassed and murdered because of their religion.  Naturally, the reports of the early travelers saying they there were very few Arabs in the Holy Land mean nothing to you.  You would never accept the fact that most of these Arabs came from surrounding areas for jobs.  Why do you think we see so many different people coming here for jobs?  Do you really think they all are coming here for political asylum?  Do you ever read about the poor Africans who try to get to Europe on vessels that are not seaworthy (and many drown) because they want jobs? Meanwhile, Pbel just doesn't want to see that the Arabs do not want to give up one tiny piece of land in the Middle East, but of course in Pbel's mind, it is all the Zionists fault.  The charters of Fatah and Hamas say they will welcome being at peace with the Jews, don't they, Pbel?  I certainly wish you can tell us why you are so obsessed with the "Zionists" when there is so much going on in the rest of the Middle East.  Why are you so silent?  People are being murdered all the time because of their religion or the sect they belong too; yet it has always been more important for you to talk about the "Zionists."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, I hope Israel is not paying you to post...Yakety yak, overboard redundancy, two sentences in and bored we go...The point being lost in a bag of hot air...
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying we should discuss Biafra or Sudan in the Palestinian Israeli board? Discuss obsessions and delusions?
> 
> What is your point in one sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I certainly hope that you didn't take money for your silly poems when you became a Dhimmi.  Let's face it, Pbel, anyone who knows your history during the years of you posting realizes that you are not interested in the Middle East as a whole, but are only interested in the "Zionists."  Do you realize that just in this year alone, thousands and thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East?  I know you can't involve the "Zionists" in this, but these people are still dead.  Do you really think that those who did the killings actually want to see Jews governing a little piece of land in the Middle East?
Click to expand...


It is rather useless to dwell on whether people like or dislike right wing Zionists or Jews of Israel... You seem to dwell on this rather than discussing how peace may be had...The world has condemned Israel for its occupation yet you dwell on why people dislike them? Those billions of people in the world dislike Israel because she breaks all International Laws like a criminal empire on the Palestinians, all because of Power and Greed.
*
BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations*

BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz


----------



## RoccoR

Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_

There is not one single reason as to why the Arab Palestinian refugee columns formed, but a compilation of several reasons.



Sweet_Caroline said:


> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no question that a battle was fought at Deir Yassin.  It is quite the matter of record that various elements of Jewish quasi-militia _[some believe  Irgun Zevai Leumi (AKA: National Military Organization) were the culprits while others claim the Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist (AKA: Lehi or Stern Gang) were involved]_, attempting to breach the blockade of Jerusalem, fought a major engagement there.  Whether all the stories are true, partly true, exaggerated - or not, may never be known.  But the Mandatory put the matter on record in the 20 April 1948 Communication Received from United Kingdom Delegation Concerning Jewish Attack on Arab Village of Deir Yassin (9 April 1948) (A/AC.21/UK/113  20 April 1948).  It was an event serious enough for the Chief Rabbinate Council to issue a condemnation; and serious enough for the Haganah _(Later to become the IDF)_ to step in and take charge of the situation from the various elements of Jewish quasi-militia involved.  The Haganah may have interfered with the proper (Jewish) Police Investigation of the incident.  It was a perfect (anti-Jewish) event to amplify in the press on the part of the pro-Arab Palestinian movements.  Again, not as a means of justification, but in the practical recognition that both sides had unfortunate events.

In the 20th Century, marked and scared by many wars, no major conflict had gone without some serious incident, of this nature, having occurred.  I say this is, not a justification for such actions, but in practical recognition --- that in reality, incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.  

December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre

As I've said many times, neither side has clean hands.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> They do if *the only other option is death*, which is what was on offer. The people themselves tell the same story how the arab armies asked them to leave the field of battle to return 2 weeks later as the new owners of all the Jewish land and property. For greed people will do anything, and there is none more greedy than a muslim.


You have know idea just how stupid you really are?

You just proved my point!

Here you have a entire population of people living in an area in virtual peace, generation after generation, then one day for some reason, they are presented with the dilemma...

a) continue to live in this area


....................or.................as you stated................


b) _*"...the only other option is death..."*_​So what, pray tell, is the reason (after 2000 years), are these people presented with the _*"...option of death..."*_?

And that "reason", is YOU FUCKERS!

You imported violence and hostility into the area and turned almost a million peaceful living farmers, into refugees, fleeing for their safety.

This is how you treated them then and this is how you treat them today...



> *"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination...
> - Ahad Ha'am  (famous Zionist humanist)*


That quote is shown to be true in every one you (and your god-damn, Israeli kiss-ass, butt-buddy's) posts.


----------



## toastman

Rocco, when pro Palestinians like Pbel and Tinmore describe the events of the the Mandatory Palestine civil war and the Arab Israeli war, they always out the Arab atrocoties. They like to make it seem like it was one side attacking the other and thats it


----------



## Billo_Really

Sweet_Caroline said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.


No text from Youtube, but that won't stop you from singing it with me twisted sister, c'mon girl, let it out...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhFnTjia_I]Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline High Quality neildiamond - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Rocco, when pro Palestinians like Pbel and Tinmore describe the events of the the Mandatory Palestine civil war and the Arab Israeli war, they always out the Arab atrocoties. They like to make it seem like it was one side attacking the other and thats it



Israel's version of history.

The British went to America in 1812. The Americans attacked and the British had to defend themselves.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, when pro Palestinians like Pbel and Tinmore describe the events of the the Mandatory Palestine civil war and the Arab Israeli war, they always out the Arab atrocoties. They like to make it seem like it was one side attacking the other and thats it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of history.
> 
> The British went to America in 1812. The Americans attacked and the British had to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Nominated for Worst Analogy of the Week.

Apples, meet oranges.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, I hope Israel is not paying you to post...Yakety yak, overboard redundancy, two sentences in and bored we go...The point being lost in a bag of hot air...
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying we should discuss Biafra or Sudan in the Palestinian Israeli board? Discuss obsessions and delusions?
> 
> What is your point in one sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I certainly hope that you didn't take money for your silly poems when you became a Dhimmi.  Let's face it, Pbel, anyone who knows your history during the years of you posting realizes that you are not interested in the Middle East as a whole, but are only interested in the "Zionists."  Do you realize that just in this year alone, thousands and thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East?  I know you can't involve the "Zionists" in this, but these people are still dead.  Do you really think that those who did the killings actually want to see Jews governing a little piece of land in the Middle East?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is rather useless to dwell on whether people like or dislike right wing Zionists or Jews of Israel... You seem to dwell on this rather than discussing how peace may be had...The world has condemned Israel for its occupation yet you dwell on why people dislike them? Those billions of people in the world dislike Israel because she breaks all International Laws like a criminal empire on the Palestinians, all because of Power and Greed.
> *
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations*
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
Click to expand...


It is amusing how the anti-Semites like Pbel keep on pulling up this poll.  You have proven one thing to the readers Pbel.  You are not concerned at all about the thousands and thousands of innocent Arabs who have been killed by other Arabs.   It is like their lives mean nothing to you.  Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.  I don't think anyone has seen hundreds of Palestinians mowed down by the IDF the way we see other Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, mowed down elsewhere in the U.S.  So keep on bringing up that poll like the silly fool you are.  Tell  you what, Pbel, since you are so interested in polls.  Why not start a poll here in the U.S. and ask other Americans how much they admire the Arabs who are busy killing their own people?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.


Absolutely!

You have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany to find an entire population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

 Old news.



pbel said:


> It is rather useless to dwell on whether people like or dislike right wing Zionists or Jews of Israel... You seem to dwell on this rather than discussing how peace may be had...The world has condemned Israel for its occupation yet you dwell on why people dislike them? Those billions of people in the world dislike Israel because she breaks all International Laws like a criminal empire on the Palestinians, all because of Power and Greed.
> *
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations*
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz


*(COMMENT)*

I just see all those people rushing to see the West Bank and Gaza.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I certainly hope that you didn't take money for your silly poems when you became a Dhimmi.  Let's face it, Pbel, anyone who knows your history during the years of you posting realizes that you are not interested in the Middle East as a whole, but are only interested in the "Zionists."  Do you realize that just in this year alone, thousands and thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East?  I know you can't involve the "Zionists" in this, but these people are still dead.  Do you really think that those who did the killings actually want to see Jews governing a little piece of land in the Middle East?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather useless to dwell on whether people like or dislike right wing Zionists or Jews of Israel... You seem to dwell on this rather than discussing how peace may be had...The world has condemned Israel for its occupation yet you dwell on why people dislike them? Those billions of people in the world dislike Israel because she breaks all International Laws like a criminal empire on the Palestinians, all because of Power and Greed.
> *
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations*
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amusing how the anti-Semites like Pbel keep on pulling up this poll.  You have proven one thing to the readers Pbel.  You are not concerned at all about the thousands and thousands of innocent Arabs who have been killed by other Arabs.   It is like their lives mean nothing to you.  Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.  I don't think anyone has seen hundreds of Palestinians mowed down by the IDF the way we see other Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, mowed down elsewhere in the U.S.  So keep on bringing up that poll like the silly fool you are.  Tell  you what, Pbel, since you are so interested in polls.  Why not start a poll here in the U.S. and ask other Americans how much they admire the Arabs who are busy killing their own people?
Click to expand...

What Pbel and the ilk won't realize is the fact that Israel doesn't abide by any popularity contest polls.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany to find an entire population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.
Click to expand...

Maybe the Palestinians should stop shooting at the Jews, then.

People who bring a cooking spatula to a gun-fight don't last long.

Nature's way of de-selecting the foolish and ill-prepared.


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather useless to dwell on whether people like or dislike right wing Zionists or Jews of Israel... You seem to dwell on this rather than discussing how peace may be had...The world has condemned Israel for its occupation yet you dwell on why people dislike them? Those billions of people in the world dislike Israel because she breaks all International Laws like a criminal empire on the Palestinians, all because of Power and Greed.
> *
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations*
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing how the anti-Semites like Pbel keep on pulling up this poll.  You have proven one thing to the readers Pbel.  You are not concerned at all about the thousands and thousands of innocent Arabs who have been killed by other Arabs.   It is like their lives mean nothing to you.  Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.  I don't think anyone has seen hundreds of Palestinians mowed down by the IDF the way we see other Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, mowed down elsewhere in the U.S.  So keep on bringing up that poll like the silly fool you are.  Tell  you what, Pbel, since you are so interested in polls.  Why not start a poll here in the U.S. and ask other Americans how much they admire the Arabs who are busy killing their own people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Pbel and the ilk won't realize is the fact that Israel doesn't abide by any popularity contest polls.
Click to expand...

You have to be alive to be unpopular.

Survival first, Miss Congeniality second.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_
> 
> There is not one single reason as to why the Arab Palestinian refugee columns formed, but a compilation of several reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that a battle was fought at Deir Yassin.  It is quite the matter of record that various elements of Jewish quasi-militia _[some believe  Irgun Zevai Leumi (AKA: National Military Organization) were the culprits while others claim the Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist (AKA: Lehi or Stern Gang) were involved]_, attempting to breach the blockade of Jerusalem, fought a major engagement there.  Whether all the stories are true, partly true, exaggerated - or not, may never be known.  But the Mandatory put the matter on record in the 20 April 1948 Communication Received from United Kingdom Delegation Concerning Jewish Attack on Arab Village of Deir Yassin (9 April 1948) (A/AC.21/UK/113  20 April 1948).  It was an event serious enough for the Chief Rabbinate Council to issue a condemnation; and serious enough for the Haganah _(Later to become the IDF)_ to step in and take charge of the situation from the various elements of Jewish quasi-militia involved.  The Haganah may have interfered with the proper (Jewish) Police Investigation of the incident.  It was a perfect (anti-Jewish) event to amplify in the press on the part of the pro-Arab Palestinian movements.  Again, not as a means of justification, but in the practical recognition that both sides had unfortunate events.
> 
> In the 20th Century, marked and scared by many wars, no major conflict had gone without some serious incident, of this nature, having occurred.  I say this is, not a justification for such actions, but in practical recognition --- that in reality, incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> As I've said many times, neither side has clean hands.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.



That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.

But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Maybe the Palestinians should stop shooting at the Jews, then.


The Israeli's shoot at people fishing and farming _(hey, *RoccoR*, do you also thank that?)_, so don't go there!





Kondor3 said:


> People who bring a cooking spatula to a gun-fight don't last long.


Maybe it was people bringing guns to a picnic?





Kondor3 said:


> Nature's way of de-selecting the foolish and ill-prepared.


You make such a good German!


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_
> 
> There is not one single reason as to why the Arab Palestinian refugee columns formed, but a compilation of several reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that a battle was fought at Deir Yassin.  It is quite the matter of record that various elements of Jewish quasi-militia _[some believe  Irgun Zevai Leumi (AKA: National Military Organization) were the culprits while others claim the Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist (AKA: Lehi or Stern Gang) were involved]_, attempting to breach the blockade of Jerusalem, fought a major engagement there.  Whether all the stories are true, partly true, exaggerated - or not, may never be known.  But the Mandatory put the matter on record in the 20 April 1948 Communication Received from United Kingdom Delegation Concerning Jewish Attack on Arab Village of Deir Yassin (9 April 1948) (A/AC.21/UK/113  20 April 1948).  It was an event serious enough for the Chief Rabbinate Council to issue a condemnation; and serious enough for the Haganah _(Later to become the IDF)_ to step in and take charge of the situation from the various elements of Jewish quasi-militia involved.  The Haganah may have interfered with the proper (Jewish) Police Investigation of the incident.  It was a perfect (anti-Jewish) event to amplify in the press on the part of the pro-Arab Palestinian movements.  Again, not as a means of justification, but in the practical recognition that both sides had unfortunate events.
> 
> In the 20th Century, marked and scared by many wars, no major conflict had gone without some serious incident, of this nature, having occurred.  I say this is, not a justification for such actions, but in practical recognition --- that in reality, incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> As I've said many times, neither side has clean hands.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.
> 
> But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

You're being unfair, Tinmore. Rocco lays out the written facts and you say they are fairy tales. Realize that you fall back two steps for every one step you take.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Palestinians should stop shooting at the Jews, then.
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's shoot at people fishing and farming _(hey, *RoccoR*, do you also thank that?)_, so don't go there!...
Click to expand...

There have, indeed, been several questionable 'fence shootings' or 'border shootings' committed by individual Israeli soldiers (as opposed to an intentional and long-running policy by the Israeli government).

But for every 'questionable' shooting there are a hundred 'righteous' ones.

Just to put that in perspective.



> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who bring a cooking spatula to a gun-fight don't last long.
> 
> 
> 
> "_Maybe it was people bringing guns to a picnic?_"
Click to expand...

Except that _these_ picnic-ers have sworn (and still do swear) to drown the picnic-crashers in the Mediterranean and to wipe them out.

Before you shoot off your mouth and try to do that, you should make sure that your picnic has enough muscle to actually make that happen.

Otherwise, don't come crying when you get your stupid, foolish ass kicked - time and again.



> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature's way of de-selecting the foolish and ill-prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> "_You make such a good German!_"
Click to expand...

Spare me the weak and ineffectual and unsubstantial Godwin-isms.

Nature will be nature, regardless of your discomfort with such an outcome being suggested for the fools that you advocate for.


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany to find an entire population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.
Click to expand...


Thousands and thousands of dead Catholics and other Christians in the Middle East, and you just close your eyes to it because the Jews are not involved in their deaths.  This is what the German people did when they smelled the odor from the crematoriums.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do if *the only other option is death*, which is what was on offer. The people themselves tell the same story how the arab armies asked them to leave the field of battle to return 2 weeks later as the new owners of all the Jewish land and property. For greed people will do anything, and there is none more greedy than a muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> You have know idea just how stupid you really are?
> 
> You just proved my point!
> 
> Here you have a entire population of people living in an area in virtual peace, generation after generation, then one day for some reason, they are presented with the dilemma...
> 
> a) continue to live in this area
> 
> 
> ....................or.................as you stated................
> 
> 
> b) _*"...the only other option is death..."*_​So what, pray tell, is the reason (after 2000 years), are these people presented with the _*"...option of death..."*_?
> 
> And that "reason", is YOU FUCKERS!
> 
> You imported violence and hostility into the area and turned almost a million peaceful living farmers, into refugees, fleeing for their safety.
> 
> This is how you treated them then and this is how you treat them today...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination...
> - Ahad Ha'am  (famous Zionist humanist)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That quote is shown to be true in every one you (and your god-damn, Israeli kiss-ass, butt-buddy's) posts.
Click to expand...


Oh shut the fuck up with your Palestinian parotting! 
When will you understand that no whining, cursing and crying on your part will change what happened in 1948 and before. The European Jews had EVERY right to be there and to think that they were the only part of the beginning of hostilities, of even a majority of the reasons, means you are a biased Palestinian propaganda spewing shill

You're not happy that the European Jews showed up?? Too fuckin bad, they were invited and their immigration fascilitated by the British.

You're not happy that the Jews started to fight back and go on the offensive?? Too fuckin bad, you should t have massacred them in 1929, and you shouldnt have started problems during the Arab revolt on 1936-1939.

You're not happy that the Irgun was created?? Too fuckin bad, they were created to protect the Jewish residents from Arab attacks

You're not happy that the Israelis started the main portions of their military advances in 1948 which led to Palestinian villages being destroyed?? Too bad, you should t have joined the Arab forces in driving the 'Jews to the sea'.

You're not happy that your land is occupied?? Too fuckin bad, you should have convinced Jordan not to join the war and you should not have joined the Arab for either.

Wahhh wahhh wahhh. Stop fuckin whining


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No text from Youtube, but that won't stop you from singing it with me twisted sister, c'mon girl, let it out...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhFnTjia_I]Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline High Quality neildiamond - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Since you brought up Neil Diamond, I bet you don't know that Neil Diamond's mother lived in the San Fernando Valley in the Oakwood Apartments in the 1970's-1980's and played cards with the other Jewish women there such as the mother of a friend of mine.  It is amusing how Billy has had no problem calling the females who have a different view from his twisted sisters when it appears that he is very twisted himself.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany to find an entire population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.
Click to expand...


You hear that Billo? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.

Hey, Billo's credibility, say hi to Tinmores credibility when you're down there!

Speaking of Nazis, doesnt Hamas have the same final solution, or a very similar one as Hitler did?

Speaking of Nazis, haven't many many MANY Palestinians screamed for the Genocide of Israelis? Only difference is Hitler hid his intentions while the Arabs scream it from the rooftops


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_
> 
> There is not one single reason as to why the Arab Palestinian refugee columns formed, but a compilation of several reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that a battle was fought at Deir Yassin.  It is quite the matter of record that various elements of Jewish quasi-militia _[some believe  Irgun Zevai Leumi (AKA: National Military Organization) were the culprits while others claim the Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist (AKA: Lehi or Stern Gang) were involved]_, attempting to breach the blockade of Jerusalem, fought a major engagement there.  Whether all the stories are true, partly true, exaggerated - or not, may never be known.  But the Mandatory put the matter on record in the 20 April 1948 Communication Received from United Kingdom Delegation Concerning Jewish Attack on Arab Village of Deir Yassin (9 April 1948) (A/AC.21/UK/113  20 April 1948).  It was an event serious enough for the Chief Rabbinate Council to issue a condemnation; and serious enough for the Haganah _(Later to become the IDF)_ to step in and take charge of the situation from the various elements of Jewish quasi-militia involved.  The Haganah may have interfered with the proper (Jewish) Police Investigation of the incident.  It was a perfect (anti-Jewish) event to amplify in the press on the part of the pro-Arab Palestinian movements.  Again, not as a means of justification, but in the practical recognition that both sides had unfortunate events.
> 
> In the 20th Century, marked and scared by many wars, no major conflict had gone without some serious incident, of this nature, having occurred.  I say this is, not a justification for such actions, but in practical recognition --- that in reality, incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> As I've said many times, neither side has clean hands.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.
> 
> But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


Croc of crap Tinmore. I challenge you to refute one thing Rocco said.
And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself? 
Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, I hope Israel is not paying you to post...Yakety yak, overboard redundancy, two sentences in and bored we go...The point being lost in a bag of hot air...
> 
> What is your point? Are you saying we should discuss Biafra or Sudan in the Palestinian Israeli board? Discuss obsessions and delusions?
> 
> What is your point in one sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I certainly hope that you didn't take money for your silly poems when you became a Dhimmi.  Let's face it, Pbel, anyone who knows your history during the years of you posting realizes that you are not interested in the Middle East as a whole, but are only interested in the "Zionists."  Do you realize that just in this year alone, thousands and thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East?  I know you can't involve the "Zionists" in this, but these people are still dead.  Do you really think that those who did the killings actually want to see Jews governing a little piece of land in the Middle East?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is rather useless to dwell on whether people like or dislike right wing Zionists or Jews of Israel... You seem to dwell on this rather than discussing how peace may be had...The world has condemned Israel for its occupation yet you dwell on why people dislike them? Those billions of people in the world dislike Israel because she breaks all International Laws like a criminal empire on the Palestinians, all because of Power and Greed.
> *
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations*
> 
> BBC poll: Israel among world's least popular nations - World Israel News | Haaretz
Click to expand...





Why do you LIE so much

 The world has not condemned Israel at all, just the ISLAMONAZI JEW HATERS. Not once have you itemised the INERNATIONAL LAWS Israel is supposed to have broken, just made vague claims of apartheid and racism. 
 peace can be had very easily by the Palestinians stopping all violence, terrorism and belligerence


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany to find an entire population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hear that Billo? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.
> 
> Hey, Billo's credibility, say hi to Tinmores credibility when you're down there!
> 
> Speaking of Nazis, doesnt Hamas have the same final solution, or a very similar one as Hitler did?
> 
> Speaking of Nazis, haven't many many MANY Palestinians screamed for the Genocide of Israelis? Only difference is Hitler hid his intentions while the Arabs scream it from the rooftops
Click to expand...








Questions?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do if *the only other option is death*, which is what was on offer. The people themselves tell the same story how the arab armies asked them to leave the field of battle to return 2 weeks later as the new owners of all the Jewish land and property. For greed people will do anything, and there is none more greedy than a muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> You have know idea just how stupid you really are?
> 
> You just proved my point!
> 
> Here you have a entire population of people living in an area in virtual peace, generation after generation, then one day for some reason, they are presented with the dilemma...
> 
> a) continue to live in this area
> 
> 
> ....................or.................as you stated................
> 
> 
> b) _*"...the only other option is death..."*_​So what, pray tell, is the reason (after 2000 years), are these people presented with the _*"...option of death..."*_?
> 
> And that "reason", is YOU FUCKERS!
> 
> You imported violence and hostility into the area and turned almost a million peaceful living farmers, into refugees, fleeing for their safety.
> 
> This is how you treated them then and this is how you treat them today...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination...
> - Ahad Ha'am  (famous Zionist humanist)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That quote is shown to be true in every one you (and your god-damn, Israeli kiss-ass, butt-buddy's) posts.
Click to expand...






 No comment on these attacks then by the Palestinians

 December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine. 
December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery 
January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion 
February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda 
February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry. 
January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post 
April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Billo_Really said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> No text from Youtube, but that won't stop you from singing it with me twisted sister, c'mon girl, let it out...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhFnTjia_I]Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline High Quality neildiamond - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


This is where I got my username from, not Neil Diamond.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, when pro Palestinians like Pbel and Tinmore describe the events of the the Mandatory Palestine civil war and the Arab Israeli war, they always out the Arab atrocoties. They like to make it seem like it was one side attacking the other and thats it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's version of history.
> 
> The British went to America in 1812. The Americans attacked and the British had to defend themselves.
Click to expand...





So what is the unbiased and non arab version of history then ?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you honestly say with a straight face that the Palestinians are treated as poorly as we see others being treated in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> You have to go all the way back to Nazi Germany to find an entire population of people treated worse than the Palestinian's.
Click to expand...




 NOPE just to 1989 when Iraq was mass murdering the Kurds, genocide and ethnic cleansing were around every corner. When the Iraqis used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds and killed men, women and children by the thousands.

 Then we had the mass murder of Palestinians by Jordan when 50,000 by some accounts were mowed down in the prison camps with no chance of escape. More were murdered in one month by the Jordanians that Israel managed in 66 years.

Just two examples of how the people you defend treat those who are different to them, aqnd you only find fault with the Jews.   

 POINTS TO YOU PRACTISING NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED AND YOU WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE AT THE NEXT KRYSTAL NACHT.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_
> 
> There is not one single reason as to why the Arab Palestinian refugee columns formed, but a compilation of several reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that a battle was fought at Deir Yassin.  It is quite the matter of record that various elements of Jewish quasi-militia _[some believe  Irgun Zevai Leumi (AKA: National Military Organization) were the culprits while others claim the Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist (AKA: Lehi or Stern Gang) were involved]_, attempting to breach the blockade of Jerusalem, fought a major engagement there.  Whether all the stories are true, partly true, exaggerated - or not, may never be known.  But the Mandatory put the matter on record in the 20 April 1948 Communication Received from United Kingdom Delegation Concerning Jewish Attack on Arab Village of Deir Yassin (9 April 1948) (A/AC.21/UK/113  20 April 1948).  It was an event serious enough for the Chief Rabbinate Council to issue a condemnation; and serious enough for the Haganah _(Later to become the IDF)_ to step in and take charge of the situation from the various elements of Jewish quasi-militia involved.  The Haganah may have interfered with the proper (Jewish) Police Investigation of the incident.  It was a perfect (anti-Jewish) event to amplify in the press on the part of the pro-Arab Palestinian movements.  Again, not as a means of justification, but in the practical recognition that both sides had unfortunate events.
> 
> In the 20th Century, marked and scared by many wars, no major conflict had gone without some serious incident, of this nature, having occurred.  I say this is, not a justification for such actions, but in practical recognition --- that in reality, incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> As I've said many times, neither side has clean hands.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.
> 
> But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...





 Defend themselves from what actually, it is them that instigate the fighting and then whinge when Israel retaliates. Fire a rocket at Israeli children and you will get your ass kicked hard, learn to live with the consequence of your actions.


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> No text from Youtube, but that won't stop you from singing it with me twisted sister, c'mon girl, let it out...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhFnTjia_I]Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline High Quality neildiamond - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


translation was accuurate


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

aris2chat said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc
> 
> Text from Youtube description:
> According to Palestinians, they were expelled from Israel by the Jewish armies in 1948. A large documentation, and many testimonies from Arab leaders and historians intend to prove that, actually, they fled the zone of conflict because of Arab propaganda, spreading the fake news of massacres... Deir Yassin, among those so said massacres, became a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> No text from Youtube, but that won't stop you from singing it with me twisted sister, c'mon girl, let it out...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhFnTjia_I]Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline High Quality neildiamond - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> translation was accuurate
Click to expand...


Of course it was accurate, which is why Brillo diverted the topic.  He does that when he realizes he has lost the argument.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Palestinians should stop shooting at the Jews, then.
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli's shoot at people fishing and farming _(hey, *RoccoR*, do you also thank that?)_, so don't go there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who bring a cooking spatula to a gun-fight don't last long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe it was people bringing guns to a picnic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature's way of de-selecting the foolish and ill-prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make such a good German!
Click to expand...






 Like the Palestinians firing rockets loaded with chemical/biological agents at Israeli children. So according to your NAZI MENTALLITY the Israelis should not fire back

 Or it could have been terrorists planting bombs in children's playgrounds ?

 You make an even better one, or are you a commie that sees no harm in starving 10 million people to death.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline,  _et al,_
> 
> There is not one single reason as to why the Arab Palestinian refugee columns formed, but a compilation of several reasons.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no question that a battle was fought at Deir Yassin.  It is quite the matter of record that various elements of Jewish quasi-militia _[some believe  Irgun Zevai Leumi (AKA: National Military Organization) were the culprits while others claim the Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist (AKA: Lehi or Stern Gang) were involved]_, attempting to breach the blockade of Jerusalem, fought a major engagement there.  Whether all the stories are true, partly true, exaggerated - or not, may never be known.  But the Mandatory put the matter on record in the 20 April 1948 Communication Received from United Kingdom Delegation Concerning Jewish Attack on Arab Village of Deir Yassin (9 April 1948) (A/AC.21/UK/113  20 April 1948).  It was an event serious enough for the Chief Rabbinate Council to issue a condemnation; and serious enough for the Haganah _(Later to become the IDF)_ to step in and take charge of the situation from the various elements of Jewish quasi-militia involved.  The Haganah may have interfered with the proper (Jewish) Police Investigation of the incident.  It was a perfect (anti-Jewish) event to amplify in the press on the part of the pro-Arab Palestinian movements.  Again, not as a means of justification, but in the practical recognition that both sides had unfortunate events.
> 
> In the 20th Century, marked and scared by many wars, no major conflict had gone without some serious incident, of this nature, having occurred.  I say this is, not a justification for such actions, but in practical recognition --- that in reality, incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> As I've said many times, neither side has clean hands.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incidents of this nature do occur and are used as a means to sling mud on the opponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.
> 
> But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Croc of crap Tinmore. I challenge you to refute one thing Rocco said.
Click to expand...

It is not so much that I refute what he says. It is whenever I mention that the Palestinians have the right to self determination *without external interference*, his come back is a page of things that *foreigners did.*  That confirms *my* point.



> And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?


Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities. 



> Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves


Anything to resist or remove the occupation.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.
> 
> But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Croc of crap Tinmore. I challenge you to refute one thing Rocco said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not so much that I refute what he says. It is whenever I mention that the Palestinians have the right to self determination *without external interference*, his come back is a page of things that *foreigners did.*  That confirms *my* point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
Click to expand...


Thats because what they do IS hostilities Tinmore. But since you are a Hamas shill, you call it 'defending'
Of course, you still cant come up with specific examples of what they have done to defend and you certainly would not be able to explain how those examples are defending. So please.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
Click to expand...

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
Click to expand...


'Don't shoot first'

But that would violate their 'when you're in a hole, keep digging' mentality


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
Click to expand...


The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.
> 
> But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Croc of crap Tinmore. I challenge you to refute one thing Rocco said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not so much that I refute what he says. It is whenever I mention that the Palestinians have the right to self determination *without external interference*, his come back is a page of things that *foreigners did.*  That confirms *my* point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
Click to expand...





 Yet the only outside interference for the Palestinians came from the arab league, who made all the decisions for the arab Palestinians.

 Because terrorism is not defence, and never has been. Unless you want to give Israel the same amount of leeway and proclaim their defence is legal ?

 More specific as that could include shooting an unarmed pregnant mother and her 4 children in the back from cover. Or planting a bomb in a childrens playground.

 Niether of which are defensive measures


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.
Click to expand...





 And the yet to be named Palestinians mass murdered the first tribe of Jews in 632 C.E. and have been mass murdering them since then on the commands of their two gods allah and Mohamed.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.

Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.



P F Tinmore said:


> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)

In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.  



			
				Article 68 - Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
			
		

> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, *shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment* is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the *person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death* under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons



It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.

Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.

Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.
Click to expand...


Link? And how can you say yet to be named Israel when there was no Israel. Makes no sense


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that can be spun either way, with a little digging, so, why bother?

Somebody has to STOP shooting first.

The Israelis are holding a Straight Flush...

You are holding a pair of Deuces...

I suggest you 'hold' when the bet comes 'round to you next time, rather than bumping again, to no good purpose...

Or lose the whole friggin' pot...

You have far more to lose by not ceasing fire...

I suggest that you cease fire while you still can...

But you won't...

You're (_metaphorically, the Palestinians who decide such things_) not smart enough for that, and can't break free of your juvenile, unrealistic petulance and self-delusion about likely outcomes, long enough to do that...

Which, in the end, is why the world really doesn't give much of a damn...

It's rather difficult to care for very long or very intensely about dumb-asses who keep shooting themselves in the foot...

You are running out of time, and that more quickly than you can possibly imagine...

Cease fire...

While you still can...


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link? And how can you say yet to be named Israel when there was no Israel. Makes no sense
Click to expand...





 He has also given Israel legitimacy as far back as 1917, something that Palestine did not get until 1988.


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link? And how can you say yet to be named Israel when there was no Israel. Makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has also given Israel legitimacy as far back as 1917, something that Palestine did not get until 1988.
Click to expand...


How can someone who doesn't know when Palestine became a state have any credibility at all when discussing the I P conflict ?


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.
> 
> When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.
> 
> Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?
> 
> Don't shoot first.
> 
> Don't launch rockets.
> 
> Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure that can be spun either way, with a little digging, so, why bother?
> 
> Somebody has to STOP shooting first.
> 
> The Israelis are holding a Straight Flush...
> 
> You are holding a pair of Deuces...
> 
> I suggest you 'hold' when the bet comes 'round to you next time, rather than bumping again, to no good purpose...
> 
> Or lose the whole friggin' pot...
> 
> You have far more to lose by not ceasing fire...
> 
> I suggest that you cease fire while you still can...
> 
> But you won't...
> 
> You're (_metaphorically, the Palestinians who decide such things_) not smart enough for that, and can't break free of your juvenile, unrealistic petulance and self-delusion about likely outcomes, long enough to do that...
> 
> Which, in the end, is why the world really doesn't give much of a damn...
> 
> It's rather difficult to care for very long or very intensely about dumb-asses who keep shooting themselves in the foot...
> 
> You are running out of time, and that more quickly than you can possibly imagine...
> 
> Cease fire...
> 
> While you still can...
Click to expand...

Using your poker terms, Tinmore is playing to an inside straight and the card he wants is already lying face up in your hand.


----------



## Lipush




----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Lipush said:


>



Here she is


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Sweet_Caroline said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here she is
Click to expand...


And here is the scum a few years earlier in 2007 begging for forgiveness, yet above in the more recent 2012 video she is gloating at her release.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 68 - Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, *shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment* is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the *person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death* under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.



*This is misleading.*

This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.

International law is different.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is misleading.*
> 
> This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.
> 
> International law is different.
Click to expand...


Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 68 - Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, *shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment* is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the *person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death* under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which
peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist
régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter
of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations.​
The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> You hear that Billo? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.


Why?  Because I made a valid comparison?




toastman said:


> Hey, Billo's credibility, say hi to Tinmores credibility when you're down there!


*Tinny's* not down there.  Maybe Santa will put it in your stocking this Christmas?



toastman said:


> Speaking of Nazis, doesnt Hamas have the same final solution, or a very similar one as Hitler did?


No they don't.



toastman said:


> Speaking of Nazis, haven't many many MANY Palestinians screamed for the Genocide of Israelis?


No they haven't.



toastman said:


> Only difference is Hitler hid his intentions while the Arabs scream it from the rooftops


Bad analogy.

Hitler's intentions were to scapegoat the jews for all the problems in his country, which they weren't.

Israel, however, _"is"_ the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Since you brought up Neil Diamond, I bet you don't know that Neil Diamond's mother lived in the San Fernando Valley in the Oakwood Apartments in the 1970's-1980's and played cards with the other Jewish women there such as the mother of a friend of mine.


No, I did not know that and thank you for sharing.




Sally said:


> It is amusing how Billy has had no problem calling the females who have a different view from his twisted sisters when it appears that he is very twisted himself.


The difference is, she was born that way, whereas I need mind-altering drugs to get in that state.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> No comment on these attacks then by the Palestinians
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre


I never said the arabs had no blood on their hands.  There was violence on both sides.  The Zionists, however, did a lot more of it.  And it was because of Zionist violence, that precipitated arab violence.


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> Israel, however, _"is"_ the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.



Camel crap. 
Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sweet_Caroline said:


> This is where I got my username from, not Neil Diamond.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEtTcqAh5A


That song kicks!  It's a cool tune.

And consequently, so is your user name.  Kudo's.

Since you showed me yours, I guess I'll show you mine.

This is where I got my user name (figuratively speaking)...

...it's a combination of being the antithesis to Bill O' Reilly and this guy...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINmYyQst4c]Sam Kinison- Gonna Raise Hell - YouTube[/ame]


*Gratuitous zone 2 compliance:*
Oh yes, I will not bow!  Ever.


----------



## Billo_Really

SAYIT said:


> Camel crap.
> Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.


So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Camel crap.
> Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?
Click to expand...


Why not? You claimed Israel *"is" the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Your source document, Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory, is not actually law, or even an interpretation by a court.  It is a consensus document publish by the Legal Division, ICRC.  It is not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, but discusses several principles which are applicable.



P F Tinmore said:


> The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.​
> The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf


*(OBSERVATION)* 

From your source:  Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory



			
				Your Source said:
			
		

> These experts were of the opinion that the context of armed conflict in which the occupier was carrying out law enforcement activities permitted it greater latitude in the use of force than would have been the case in police operations carried out on its own territory. In addition, one expert pointed out, Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (part of the law enforcement model based on occupation law) authorized the occupying power to take any security measures that may be necessary because of the occupation. The expert said that since the use of force during police operations would necessarily fall under this provision, the result would be substantial flexibility under the law enforcement model in situations of occupation. He suggested that security measures, including the use of force, within the meaning of Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were based not on the standard of strict or absolute necessity required under human rights law, but on the more generous concept of military necessity underlying IHL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article*27 §4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (part of the law enforcement model based on occupation law) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ ICRC CGIV
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

First, I did not rely on Article 2 concepts, as your rebuttal centers on.  I cited the concepts of Article 27 and quoted Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.  While as interesting as your rebuttal is, it doesn't address my position at all.  _(Or as you are so fond of say, it is irrelevant.)_

Within your source document is an elegant set of arguments.  But at the end of the day, on Page 120, the outcome was.

*Special Note:* I encourage you to read PART ONE: DELIMITING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY --- SECTION D. THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION LAW IN REGULATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, specifically pages 119 and 120.  It will be helpful to you.​ 


			
				Your source document:  Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory said:
			
		

> *Finally,* the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. *In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.*



Further, I also relied on the a fact that is often forgotten in the discussion.  In 1967 Israel did not occupy "Palestine."  Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, territory under Egyptian Occupation and Administration.  And, Israel occupied the West Bank, which was under the Sovereign control of Jordan.  And since that time, it was the Israelis that allowed the Palestinian people to declare independence --- a form of self-determination, and not either Arab League Nation.

Nothing in your rebuttal suggest, even in the slightest way, that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to conduct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, with exemption or immunity from punishment or recrimination _(impunity)_.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hear that Billo? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because I made a valid comparison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Billo's credibility, say hi to Tinmores credibility when you're down there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tinny's* not down there.  Maybe Santa will put it in your stocking this Christmas?
> 
> No they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Nazis, haven't many many MANY Palestinians screamed for the Genocide of Israelis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only difference is Hitler hid his intentions while the Arabs scream it from the rooftops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bad analogy.
> 
> Hitler's intentions were to scapegoat the jews for all the problems in his country, which they weren't.
> 
> Israel, however, _"is"_ the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.
Click to expand...


Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. Fuck, you're ignorant.
And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.

Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No comment on these attacks then by the Palestinians
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the arabs had no blood on their hands.  There was violence on both sides.  The Zionists, however, did a lot more of it.  And it was because of Zionist violence, that precipitated arab violence.
Click to expand...


And it was because of Arab violence that precipitated Zionist violence


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Camel crap.
> Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?
Click to expand...


The 'occupation' is a result of Jordan joining the war in 1967. The continuing of the 'occupation' is because there is no peace treaty. And because the Palestinians have not show Israel can trust them in the sense that ending the 'occupation ' would mean that it would be extremely easy for Palestinian terrorists to infiltrate Israel. If you didnt only read propaganda sites, you would read that there have plenty of arrests of those affiliated with Hamas planning attacks.
Checkpoints are there because...well... Do I need to explain that to you??


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is misleading.*
> 
> This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.
> 
> International law is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Your source document, Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory, is not actually law, or even an interpretation by a court.  It is a consensus document publish by the Legal Division, ICRC.  It is not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, but discusses several principles which are applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.​
> The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From your source:  Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Source said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These experts were of the opinion that the context of armed conflict in which the occupier was carrying out law enforcement activities permitted it greater latitude in the use of force than would have been the case in police operations carried out on its own territory. In addition, one expert pointed out, Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (part of the law enforcement model based on occupation law) authorized the occupying power to take any security measures that may be necessary because of the occupation. The expert said that since the use of force during police operations would necessarily fall under this provision, the result would be substantial flexibility under the law enforcement model in situations of occupation. He suggested that security measures, including the use of force, within the meaning of Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were based not on the standard of strict or absolute necessity required under human rights law, but on the more generous concept of military necessity underlying IHL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I did not rely on Article 2 concepts, as your rebuttal centers on.  I cited the concepts of Article 27 and quoted Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.  While as interesting as your rebuttal is, it doesn't address my position at all.  _(Or as you are so fond of say, it is irrelevant.)_
> 
> Within your source document is an elegant set of arguments.  But at the end of the day, on Page 120, the outcome was.
> 
> *Special Note:* I encourage you to read PART ONE: DELIMITING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY --- SECTION D. THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION LAW IN REGULATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, specifically pages 119 and 120.  It will be helpful to you.​
> 
> 
> 
> Your source document:  Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Finally,* the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. *In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further, I also relied on the a fact that is often forgotten in the discussion.  In 1967 Israel did not occupy "Palestine."  Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, territory under Egyptian Occupation and Administration.  And, Israel occupied the West Bank, which was under the Sovereign control of Jordan.  And since that time, it was the Israelis that allowed the Palestinian people to declare independence --- a form of self-determination, and not either Arab League Nation.
> 
> Nothing in your rebuttal suggest, even in the slightest way, that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to conduct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, with exemption or immunity from punishment or recrimination _(impunity)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Thank you for confirming my point about local law enforcement that is separate from international violations.



> and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.



Fighting against the occupation is a right even though Israel may have some little local laws against it.



> Recognizing that the Palestinian people* is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> *
> Expressing its grave concern that* the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights,* in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the* inalienable rights of the Palestinian people* in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) *The right to self-determination without external interference;*
> 
> (b) *The right to national independence and sovereignty;*
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the *inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes* and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the *realization of these inalienable rights* of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> 4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
> 
> 5. Further recognizes the right of the* Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means *in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is misleading.*
> 
> This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.
> 
> International law is different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.



OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_




P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
Click to expand...

*(ANSWER)*



			
				Article 68 Geneva Code said:
			
		

> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> *SOURCE:* ICRC GCIV



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
Click to expand...


Whats the point. Even when anyone gives you a link that clearly proves what they say or clearly disproves what you said, you still argue and claim you are right.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 68 Geneva Code said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> *SOURCE:* ICRC GCIV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I thought we were talking about Jordan and Egyptian law.

And when it comes to things like sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, those are only violations when committed against your own country.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
Click to expand...


I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.
Click to expand...


Refusing to surrender is illegal?

Link?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refusing to surrender is illegal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

I don't think he said or implied that, PF.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refusing to surrender is illegal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Refusing to surrender is neither legal or illegal.
The Torah concept of war never mentions surrender.
[1] Give the enemy a warning before battle...Leave or die.
[2] If you don't leave and you lose, you live by our rules.
[3] If you are hostile after you lose the war you die.

Simple enough...God said it, not me.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You make me laugh.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refusing to surrender is illegal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I did not say or imply that.

Whether or not the opposing force surrenders or not, doesn't negate occupation law.

There is little to no question that Israel is an Occupation Force.  The Geneva Convention applies.

The explanation in Posting #2905 still applies.



			
				Your Source said:
			
		

> Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. *In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.*
> 
> *From your source:* Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You make me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refusing to surrender is illegal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not say or imply that.
> 
> Whether or not the opposing force surrenders or not, doesn't negate occupation law.
> 
> There is little to no question that Israel is an Occupation Force.  The Geneva Convention applies.
> 
> The explanation in Posting #2905 still applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Source said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. *In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.*
> 
> *From your source:* Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Indeed, that is law enforcement for things the occupation deems illegal.

That is not illegal under international law. The Palestinians have the right to regain their rights by all means.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This is misleading.*
> 
> This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.
> 
> International law is different.
Click to expand...





 That is International Law you buffoon, it is the article from the Geneva conventions that covers this. Local Laws always take precedence over International Laws or we would have no LAW AT ALL. If local laws say no urinating against public buildings no International law can say otherwise. So if the P.A. has it as a local law that premeditated shooting of another person carries the death penalty then under occupation the same law applies. And it does not distinguish if the person is indigenous or occupying power, but this can be used to mitigate the circumstances surrounding the shooting.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to resist or remove the occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 68 - Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, *shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment* is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the *person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death* under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which
> peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist
> régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter
> of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
> Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
> United Nations.​
> The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf
Click to expand...




 From your link

 the ICJ stated that occupation required the exercise of actual
authority by the foreign forces (emphasis added).5 In others words, the ICJ decided that foreign
troops should substantiate their authority in order to qualify as an occupying power.

Therefore, most of the experts supported a test based on the ability of enemy foreign forces to exert
authority over a specific area. As illustration, one expert referred to the situation of Denmark during
World War II when German armed forces, despite their military supremacy, had chosen not to exert
authority and had let the Danish Government do so instead.

* Now isnt the P.A. in control of the west bank ?*

Most of the experts agreed that Article 43 of THR should be interpreted broadly to allow the
occupying power to fulfil its duties under occupation law, in particular the administration
of the occupied territory for the benefit of the local population, *while ensuring the security
of its own armed forces.*



 Always make sure your link does not say the opposite to what you are meaning.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You hear that Billo? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because I made a valid comparison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Billo's credibility, say hi to Tinmores credibility when you're down there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tinny's* not down there.  Maybe Santa will put it in your stocking this Christmas?
> 
> No they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Nazis, haven't many many MANY Palestinians screamed for the Genocide of Israelis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only difference is Hitler hid his intentions while the Arabs scream it from the rooftops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bad analogy.
> 
> Hitler's intentions were to scapegoat the jews for all the problems in his country, which they weren't.
> 
> Israel, however, _"is"_ the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.
Click to expand...





 Lets see if you can answer a very simple set of questions honestly and truthfully shall we

 1) were was Israel in 627 C.E. when Mohamed the founder of Islam proclaimed to his followers "KILL ALL THE JEWS"

 2) what breaches of International Law did Israel commit in 1929 that resulted in the riots in Hebron.

 3) do explain how Hitler came by his final solution that mirrors that set up by the muslims many years earlier.

 4) what comparison is there between the yellow star worn by Jews in Islamic nations 500 years ago and that worn by Jews in 1930's Europe.


 Now for the calls of the genocide of the Jews take a look at these

PA Official Publicly Calls for Genocide of Jews - Middle East - News - Israel National News

 The principal Palestinian Authoritys religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, speaking last week, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs0xLdFqU_s]Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This absolutely and quintessential wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, that is law enforcement for things the occupation deems illegal.
> 
> That is not illegal under international law. The Palestinians have the right to regain their rights by all means.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no human right to anything using "all means."

In this case, I can only refer you to understand the essence of Article 68 of the Geneva Code and the Rome Statutes.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Lets see if you can answer a very simple set of questions honestly and truthfully shall we


Yes we shall!



Phoenall said:


> 1) were was Israel in 627 C.E. when Mohamed the founder of Islam proclaimed to his followers "KILL ALL THE JEWS"


I dunno!  I don't give a shit, either.

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.



Phoenall said:


> 2) what breaches of International Law did Israel commit in 1929 that resulted in the riots in Hebron.


Their weren't any.  IHL didn't come into existence until the end of WWII.



Phoenall said:


> 3) do explain how Hitler came by his final solution that mirrors that set up by the muslims many years earlier.


I can't.  Because I don't know about _*"that set up"*_, you're referring to.

Why don't you enlighten me with some specifics and links?


Phoenall said:


> 4) what comparison is there between the yellow star worn by Jews in Islamic nations 500 years ago and that worn by Jews in 1930's Europe.


Can't answer that one, either.

For two reasons:

I'm not qualified to answer that
I don't give a shit about any comparison and could care less
So how'd I do?



Phoenall said:


> Now for the calls of the genocide of the Jews take a look at these
> 
> PA Official Publicly Calls for Genocide of Jews - Middle East - News - Israel National News
> 
> The principal Palestinian Authoritys religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, speaking last week, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal
> 
> Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV - YouTube


He's a fucking asshole and a moron!  Fuck him!


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you brought up Neil Diamond, I bet you don't know that Neil Diamond's mother lived in the San Fernando Valley in the Oakwood Apartments in the 1970's-1980's and played cards with the other Jewish women there such as the mother of a friend of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not know that and thank you for sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing how Billy has had no problem calling the females who have a different view from his twisted sisters when it appears that he is very twisted himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is, she was born that way, whereas I need mind-altering drugs to get in that state.
Click to expand...





 Then stop taking them and eventually you will be free of your demons, could take 10 years. So in the meantime stop posting NAZI ANTI SEMOITIC JEW HATRED and yiu will find the transition easier.


----------



## Billo_Really

SAYIT said:


> Why not? You claimed Israel *"is" the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.*


Because of the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints.

What can you point to that it's not?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No comment on these attacks then by the Palestinians
> 
> December 1947  Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks  Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
> December 30, 1947  39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifas oil refinery
> January 16, 1948  35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
> February 22, 1948  44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalems Rehov Ben-Yehuda
> February 29, 1948  23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
> January and February 1948  Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Maanit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
> April 13, 1948  35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the arabs had no blood on their hands.  There was violence on both sides.  The Zionists, however, did a lot more of it.  And it was because of Zionist violence, that precipitated arab violence.
Click to expand...






 Not according to the real history books.  But you have ignored the much more prevalent mass murders of Jews by the Palestinians by not giving them equal credence.

 Now show were Jews mass murdered Palestinians using a credible source for your evidence of Zionist violence. Not your usual NAZI and ISLAMONAZI sites that are known to be lying.  Lets see a near 200 mass murder tally by the "Zionists" that is not retaliation to ISLAMONAZI VIOLENT TERRORISM using illegal weapons aimed at children.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Camel crap.
> Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?
Click to expand...





 Are you saying that 1400 years of mass murder, land theft, rape, forced conversion, brutality, mindless violence and attempted genocide has no affect on the Israeli's daily lives. To say nothing of their relief when it was eventually brought to a halt and the ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM were given a tiny taste of the treatment they have dished out to the Jews. All they need to do is stop the rockets, bombs, mortars and bullets aimed at Israeli children and stand by their word given under the Oslo accords and they will get blockade, checkpoints and roadblocks lifted.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Your source document, Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory, is not actually law, or even an interpretation by a court.  It is a consensus document publish by the Legal Division, ICRC.  It is not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, but discusses several principles which are applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.​
> The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From your source:  Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I did not rely on Article 2 concepts, as your rebuttal centers on.  I cited the concepts of Article 27 and quoted Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.  While as interesting as your rebuttal is, it doesn't address my position at all.  _(Or as you are so fond of say, it is irrelevant.)_
> 
> Within your source document is an elegant set of arguments.  But at the end of the day, on Page 120, the outcome was.
> 
> *Special Note:* I encourage you to read PART ONE: DELIMITING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY --- SECTION D. THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION LAW IN REGULATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, specifically pages 119 and 120.  It will be helpful to you.​
> 
> 
> Further, I also relied on the a fact that is often forgotten in the discussion.  In 1967 Israel did not occupy "Palestine."  Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, territory under Egyptian Occupation and Administration.  And, Israel occupied the West Bank, which was under the Sovereign control of Jordan.  And since that time, it was the Israelis that allowed the Palestinian people to declare independence --- a form of self-determination, and not either Arab League Nation.
> 
> Nothing in your rebuttal suggest, even in the slightest way, that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to conduct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, with exemption or immunity from punishment or recrimination _(impunity)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming my point about local law enforcement that is separate from international violations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fighting against the occupation is a right even though Israel may have some little local laws against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizing that the Palestinian people* is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> *
> Expressing its grave concern that* the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights,* in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the* inalienable rights of the Palestinian people* in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) *The right to self-determination without external interference;*
> 
> (b) *The right to national independence and sovereignty;*
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the *inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes* and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the *realization of these inalienable rights* of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> 4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
> 
> 5. Further recognizes the right of the* Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means *in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






 It is not Israeli law that counts but the law of the nation that had the control and government of the land prior to occupation. In this case it was Jordan, and whatever laws they put in place while they had governmental control.

 The Palestinians have been given that right and have abused it time and time again.
 I don't believe you even understand what the right to self determination actually means, but in the Palestinians case they have determined that they will engage on violent terrorist actions that result in retaliations from the people they terrorise. A good example is Jordan that shot 50,000 in one month because they freely determined that they would terrorise Jordan into giving up their land.
 The only people standing in the way of peace and a nationality are the Palestinians themselves when they refuse to talk like grown ups and make unrealistic demands.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.
> 
> But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention,  you will not that it says (Article 68, _supra_) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force *before* the occupation began."  _(Read it twice.)_  In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law.  I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
Click to expand...





 MURDER, TREASON, SEDITION AND SUBVERSION  are all illegal under any law in all civilised nations. Shooting an enemy soldier is not murder, shooting a child and a pregnant woman is even if they are of the enemy.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 68 Geneva Code said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
> 
> In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
> 
> *SOURCE:* ICRC GCIV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we were talking about Jordan and Egyptian law.
> 
> And when it comes to things like sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, those are only violations when committed against your own country.
Click to expand...




 Sabotage is illegal in any country, and espionage still caries the death penalty. Why not take a look at the Laws of Jordan and Egypt and see how they apply to the west bank and gaza.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refusing to surrender is illegal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...





 Now were in the reply was that said, or is it your fantasy world putting those words in because you are losing the argument AGAIN.

 Refusing to surrender is criminally insane, and shows once again that the Palestinians are not yet ready for any free determination


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You make me laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusing to surrender is illegal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not say or imply that.
> 
> Whether or not the opposing force surrenders or not, doesn't negate occupation law.
> 
> There is little to no question that Israel is an Occupation Force.  The Geneva Convention applies.
> 
> The explanation in Posting #2905 still applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Source said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. *In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.*
> 
> *From your source:* Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is law enforcement for things the occupation deems illegal.
> 
> That is not illegal under international law. The Palestinians have the right to regain their rights by all means.
Click to expand...





 Be very careful on what you say next as the above is an actual breach of International law. Under International Law terrorism, murder, chemical/biological weapons, mass murder, attacks on children and many other actions carried out by the Palestinians are ILLEGAL and they can not and should not use them to regain their land back. They have not lost any rights under the occupation as they are governed by the P.A. 

 So if you want to incite the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons be aware that you could be held responsible for other peoples actions


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if you can answer a very simple set of questions honestly and truthfully shall we
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we shall!
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) were was Israel in 627 C.E. when Mohamed the founder of Islam proclaimed to his followers "KILL ALL THE JEWS"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno!  I don't give a shit, either.
> 
> What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.
> 
> Their weren't any.  IHL didn't come into existence until the end of WWII.
> 
> I can't.  Because I don't know about _*"that set up"*_, you're referring to.
> 
> Why don't you enlighten me with some specifics and links?
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) what comparison is there between the yellow star worn by Jews in Islamic nations 500 years ago and that worn by Jews in 1930's Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't answer that one, either.
> 
> For two reasons:
> 
> I'm not qualified to answer that
> I don't give a shit about any comparison and could care less
> So how'd I do?
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the calls of the genocide of the Jews take a look at these
> 
> PA Official Publicly Calls for Genocide of Jews - Middle East - News - Israel National News
> 
> The principal Palestinian Authoritys religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, speaking last week, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal
> 
> Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's a fucking asshole and a moron!  Fuck him!
Click to expand...





 You fail to even attempt an honest answer because it shows the problems lie with the deranged Palestinian religion. When it is shown that the Palestinians are just following their religious commands you don't want to know. When it is shown that the Jews in Palestine were brutalised by the Palestinians you don't want to know. And then when it is shown that the Nazis just copied the dhimma laws you ignore the reality. 
 IN OTHER WORDS YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEMS IN THE M.E. JUST THE ONES YOU CAN USE TO DEMONISE AND CASTIGATE THE JEWS WITH.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? You claimed Israel *"is" the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints.
> 
> What can you point to that it's not?
Click to expand...





 The 5,000 rocket attacks, the 500 suicide bombings of children, the 1,000's of unprovoked attacks and finally the commands of their religion that tells them " KILL ALL THE JEWS "


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.
> 
> Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power.  They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.  While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses.  Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)
> 
> In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US.  But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes.  Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law.  Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime.  This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) _ or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_  Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.
> 
> Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.
> 
> Resistance comes in two forms:  violent and non-violent.  Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal.  Violent resistance is illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which
> peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist
> régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter
> of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
> Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
> United Nations.​
> The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> the ICJ stated that occupation required the exercise of actual
> authority by the foreign forces (emphasis added).5 In others words, the ICJ decided that foreign
> troops should substantiate their authority in order to qualify as an occupying power.
> 
> Therefore, most of the experts supported a test based on the ability of enemy foreign forces to exert
> authority over a specific area. As illustration, one expert referred to the situation of Denmark during
> World War II when German armed forces, despite their military supremacy, had chosen not to exert
> authority and had let the Danish Government do so instead.
> 
> * Now isnt the P.A. in control of the west bank ?*
Click to expand...

*No!*



> Most of the experts agreed that Article 43 of THR should be interpreted broadly to allow the occupying power to fulfil its duties under occupation law,


Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions.

What are those and what is Israel's record of compliance?



> in particular the administration of the occupied territory for the benefit of the local population,


What does Israel do to benefit the local population?



> *while ensuring the security
> of its own armed forces.*
> 
> 
> 
> Always make sure your link does not say the opposite to what you are meaning.


----------



## toastman

Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
fact of taking part in hostilities.*

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

So!



P F Tinmore said:


> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf


*(COMMENT)*

In 1967, the War was fought between Israel and the forces of Jordan (including all the West Bank) and Egypt (including all the Gaza Strip).  The war is concluded.  Peace treaties are signed, and there are no remnants.  There was no such country as Palestine at the time.

As you so often say.... irrelevant!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> So!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1967, the War was fought between Israel and the forces of Jordan (including all the West Bank) and Egypt (including all the Gaza Strip).  The war is concluded.  Peace treaties are signed, and there are no remnants.  There was no such country as Palestine at the time.
> 
> As you so often say.... irrelevant!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The west Bank was not Jordan.



> The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?



Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which
> peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist
> régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter
> of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
> Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
> United Nations.​
> The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of alien occupation; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted  namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of the territory of a High Contracting Party. As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term alien occupation is meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> the ICJ stated that occupation required the exercise of actual
> authority by the foreign forces (emphasis added).5 In others words, the ICJ decided that foreign
> troops should substantiate their authority in order to qualify as an occupying power.
> 
> Therefore, most of the experts supported a test based on the ability of enemy foreign forces to exert
> authority over a specific area. As illustration, one expert referred to the situation of Denmark during
> World War II when German armed forces, despite their military supremacy, had chosen not to exert
> authority and had let the Danish Government do so instead.
> 
> * Now isnt the P.A. in control of the west bank ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No!*
> 
> 
> Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions.
> 
> What are those and what is Israel's record of compliance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in particular the administration of the occupied territory for the benefit of the local population,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does Israel do to benefit the local population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *while ensuring the security
> of its own armed forces.*
> 
> 
> 
> Always make sure your link does not say the opposite to what you are meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




 Then who represents the Palestinians in the UN, and is judged by all nations to be the governing body ?


 See the Geneva conventions for the details and then see if Israel exceeds those boundaries. 

 Provides paid employment that gives wages over and above those paid by the P.A.

 Which is the clause you never seem to understand when you make your FALSE CLAIMS about Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were talking about Jordan and Egyptian law.
> 
> And when it comes to things like sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, those are only violations when committed against your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage is illegal in any country, and espionage still caries the death penalty. Why not take a look at the Laws of Jordan and Egypt and see how they apply to the west bank and gaza.
Click to expand...


Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf






 Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians. No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.

 Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> the ICJ stated that occupation required the exercise of actual
> authority by the foreign forces (emphasis added).5 In others words, the ICJ decided that foreign
> troops should substantiate their authority in order to qualify as an occupying power.
> 
> Therefore, most of the experts supported a test based on the ability of enemy foreign forces to exert
> authority over a specific area. As illustration, one expert referred to the situation of Denmark during
> World War II when German armed forces, despite their military supremacy, had chosen not to exert
> authority and had let the Danish Government do so instead.
> 
> * Now isnt the P.A. in control of the west bank ?*
> 
> 
> 
> *No!*
> 
> 
> Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions.
> 
> What are those and what is Israel's record of compliance?
> 
> 
> What does Israel do to benefit the local population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *while ensuring the security
> of its own armed forces.*
> 
> 
> 
> Always make sure your link does not say the opposite to what you are meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then who represents the Palestinians in the UN, and is judged by all nations to be the governing body ?
> 
> 
> See the Geneva conventions for the details and then see if Israel exceeds those boundaries.
> 
> Provides paid employment that gives wages over and above those paid by the P.A.
> 
> Which is the clause you never seem to understand when you make your FALSE CLAIMS about Israel.
Click to expand...


Nice duck.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> So!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1967, the War was fought between Israel and the forces of Jordan (including all the West Bank) and Egypt (including all the Gaza Strip).  The war is concluded.  Peace treaties are signed, and there are no remnants.  There was no such country as Palestine at the time.
> 
> As you so often say.... irrelevant!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The west Bank was not Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Jordan occupied the west bank with the Palestinians acceptance of their rule, who did they conquer to annexe this land. Which sovereign  nation had government control of the land before Jordan invaded and who did they depose as leader of that nation  ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel
Click to expand...




 Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule. 
 Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were talking about Jordan and Egyptian law.
> 
> And when it comes to things like sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, those are only violations when committed against your own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage is illegal in any country, and espionage still caries the death penalty. Why not take a look at the Laws of Jordan and Egypt and see how they apply to the west bank and gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
> carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
Click to expand...




 And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. *Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians.* No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.
> 
> Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.
Click to expand...


Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.

They are wearing their traditional "uniform."


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage is illegal in any country, and espionage still caries the death penalty. Why not take a look at the Laws of Jordan and Egypt and see how they apply to the west bank and gaza.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
> carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
Click to expand...


Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. *Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians.* No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.
> 
> Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.
> 
> They are wearing their traditional "uniform."
Click to expand...


Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. *Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians.* No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.
> 
> Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.
> 
> They are wearing their traditional "uniform."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?
Click to expand...


Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
> carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection.

Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'

Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
> Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .
Click to expand...


No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.
> 
> They are wearing their traditional "uniform."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."
Click to expand...


Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
> Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.
Click to expand...


The PA is the governing for e of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Just because you're pissed that he has surpassed his term, doesnt change anything


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'
> 
> Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.
Click to expand...


"Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.

The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
> Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PA is the governing for e of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Just because you're pissed that he has surpassed his term, doesnt change anything
Click to expand...


Does the PA control its borders?
Control its airspace?
Control its imports and exports?
Control its travel and tourism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Not true. Look it up.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'
> 
> Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
Click to expand...


There's no such country as Palestine, so no such thing as Palestinians. Just more Arab scum.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'
> 
> Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
Click to expand...


Just because you consider it name calling, doesnt make it so.

And yes , many Palestinians do fit that category. We already know you do t consider what many of them have do be terrorism, but it's not up to you to decide.
Hamas and other Islamic groups have commited terrorist acts by attacking people in Israel without distinguishing between civilian and mitary targets and not trying to avoid  civilian targets in order to achieve their political goals.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'
> 
> Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you consider it name calling, doesnt make it so.
> 
> And yes , many Palestinians do fit that category. We already know you do t consider what many of them have do be terrorism, but it's not up to you to decide.
> Hamas and other Islamic groups have commited terrorist acts by attacking people in Israel without distinguishing between civilian and mitary targets and not trying to avoid  civilian targets in order to achieve their political goals.
Click to expand...


OK, you have said it now prove it.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
> carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
Click to expand...


Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians? 

Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
Click to expand...


It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians?
> 
> Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about
Click to expand...


Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you consider it name calling, doesnt make it so.
> 
> And yes , many Palestinians do fit that category. We already know you do t consider what many of them have do be terrorism, but it's not up to you to decide.
> Hamas and other Islamic groups have commited terrorist acts by attacking people in Israel without distinguishing between civilian and mitary targets and not trying to avoid  civilian targets in order to achieve their political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you have said it now prove it.
Click to expand...


Ive already brought up the definition of who are terrorist many times with several links that I posted. But like always, when I bring up a link that clearly proves what I said, you still talk as if you're still right.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
Click to expand...

Arabs can surrender and end the war, just like Japan did.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you consider it name calling, doesnt make it so.
> 
> And yes , many Palestinians do fit that category. We already know you do t consider what many of them have do be terrorism, but it's not up to you to decide.
> Hamas and other Islamic groups have commited terrorist acts by attacking people in Israel without distinguishing between civilian and mitary targets and not trying to avoid  civilian targets in order to achieve their political goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you have said it now prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive already brought up the definition of who are terrorist many times with several links that I posted. But like always, when I bring up a link that clearly proves what I said, you still talk as if you're still right.
Click to expand...


You have brought up the name calling list, but nothing on matching the definition.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians?
> 
> Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
Click to expand...


Im not sure if you re being serious or not. Also, you still havent proven it OR answered my question about Germany.


----------



## P F Tinmore

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs can surrender and end the war, just like Japan did.
Click to expand...


We could have surrendered too. It would have saved many lives.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs can surrender and end the war, just like Japan did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have surrendered too. It would have saved many lives.
Click to expand...


So then Arabs should surrender and save lives. Since they have zero hope of winning anyways, why bother?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians?
> 
> Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure if you re being serious or not. Also, you still havent proven it OR answered my question about Germany.
Click to expand...


A lot of international law was written *because *of Germany.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
Click to expand...


I do. I fully support and promote BDS as a peaceful solution.

What are you doing for peace? What peace initiatives do you support?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do. I fully support and promote BDS as a peaceful solution.
> 
> What are you doing for peace? What peace initiatives do you support?
Click to expand...

There ya go again! BDS is not defensive.It's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.


----------



## Hossfly

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I fully support and promote BDS as a peaceful solution.
> 
> What are you doing for peace? What peace initiatives do you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go again! BDS is not defensive.It's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.
Click to expand...

Almost forgot. I support peace thru superior firepower. How 'bout them apples?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Please read this carefully.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> So!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1967, the War was fought between Israel and the forces of Jordan (including all the West Bank) and Egypt (including all the Gaza Strip).  The war is concluded.  Peace treaties are signed, and there are no remnants.  There was no such country as Palestine at the time.
> 
> As you so often say.... irrelevant!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The west Bank was not Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*

From the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom Website:

(Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine of the Two Banks)



			
				Unification of the Two Banks said:
			
		

> As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the West Bank territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
> 
> *On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.*
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordans lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE:  SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. de BOISANGER (France) recalled the announcement in the press of a statement made to Parliament by the United Kingdom Government, defining the attitude adopted in London towards Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan following the decision taken by the Parliament of the latter country to annex the territory of Arab Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom. He thought that although the full text of the statement by the United Kingdom Governments spokesman was not yet to hand, the change in question would seem likely to encourage the other Arab States to negotiate with Israel.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.25/SR.148   28 April 1950
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Tragedy of Palestine
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Notice that the decision included participation by the "Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank" in the decision to annex.  This is called exercising the right of self-determination.

Arab Palestinian revisionist often like to omit the fact that they were part of the process and that they voted for annexation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Please read this carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> So!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1967, the War was fought between Israel and the forces of Jordan (including all the West Bank) and Egypt (including all the Gaza Strip).  The war is concluded.  Peace treaties are signed, and there are no remnants.  There was no such country as Palestine at the time.
> 
> As you so often say.... irrelevant!
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The west Bank was not Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom Website:
> 
> (Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine of the Two Banks)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the West Bank territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
> 
> *On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.*
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordans lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE:  SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. de BOISANGER (France) recalled the announcement in the press of a statement made to Parliament by the United Kingdom Government, defining the attitude adopted in London towards Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan following the decision taken by the Parliament of the latter country to annex the territory of Arab Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom. He thought that although the full text of the statement by the United Kingdom Governments spokesman was not yet to hand, the change in question would seem likely to encourage the other Arab States to negotiate with Israel.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/AC.25/SR.148   28 April 1950
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Tragedy of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Notice that the decision included participation by the "Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank" in the decision to annex.  This is called exercising the right of self-determination.
> 
> Arab Palestinian revisionist often like to omit the fact that they were part of the process and that they voted for annexation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.

This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure if you re being serious or not. Also, you still havent proven it OR answered my question about Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of international law was written *because *of Germany.
Click to expand...


Nice duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I fully support and promote BDS as a peaceful solution.
> 
> What are you doing for peace? What peace initiatives do you support?
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go again! BDS is not defensive.It's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost forgot. I support peace thru superior firepower. How 'bout them apples?
Click to expand...


Good point.

The Palestine side promotes peace, justice, and equality in compliance with international law.

The Israeli side promotes death and ethnic cleansing in violation of international law.

That tells us something.


----------



## toastman

p f tinmore said:


> hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> there ya go again! Bds is not defensive.it's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot. I support peace thru superior firepower. How 'bout them apples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good point.
> 
> The palestine side promotes peace, justice, and equality in compliance with international law.
> 
> The israeli side promotes death and ethnic cleansing in violation of international law.
> 
> That tells us something.
Click to expand...


lol!!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
> carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
Click to expand...





 Am I or am I stating the reality of the situation, you made the claim that the P.A. has no standing army so any action must be terrorist in nature. It is you playing the terrorism card to escape from the hole you have dug yourself.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go again! BDS is not defensive.It's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost forgot. I support peace thru superior firepower. How 'bout them apples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> The Palestine side promotes peace, justice, and equality in compliance with international law.
> 
> The Israeli side promotes death and ethnic cleansing in violation of international law.
> 
> That tells us something.
Click to expand...


Your posts tells us you are delusional and subscribe to way too many Muslim Propaganda web sites.

Your postings over the last 48 hours have become "over the edge" bizarre.
Please do continue to not help your cause.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of the occupied countrys armed forces who
> continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
> captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
> Third Geneva Convention. *In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
> fact of taking part in hostilities.*
> 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. *Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians.* No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.
> 
> Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.
> 
> They are wearing their traditional "uniform."
Click to expand...





 Then anyone wearing this "traditional uniform" is a valid military target, so there have been no civilian deaths at the hands of the Israelis just Palestinian defence forces.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Please read this carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The west Bank was not Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom Website:
> 
> (Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine of the Two Banks)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the West Bank territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
> 
> *On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.*
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordans lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Tragedy of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Notice that the decision included participation by the "Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank" in the decision to annex.  This is called exercising the right of self-determination.
> 
> Arab Palestinian revisionist often like to omit the fact that they were part of the process and that they voted for annexation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
Click to expand...

No-one calls it "occupied territory" except idiots and the uninformed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.
> 
> They are wearing their traditional "uniform."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."
Click to expand...




 Nor are Palestinian defence force, call them militia, insurgents or terrorists if you like it does not alter the fact that they are in breach of International Law by wearing civilian clothes


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
> Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.
Click to expand...





 The P.A. rule the west bank and Israel occupies it as a defensive measure under the terms of the Geneva conventions. Don't like the reality then have your representative call for a change in the law.


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Please read this carefully.
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom Website:
> 
> (Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine of the Two Banks)
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Notice that the decision included participation by the "Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank" in the decision to annex.  This is called exercising the right of self-determination.
> 
> Arab Palestinian revisionist often like to omit the fact that they were part of the process and that they voted for annexation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No-one calls it "occupied territory" except idiots and the uninformed.
Click to expand...




Then: if its not occupied territory then its part of Israel and the Palestinians are Citizens or Apartheid? What is your conclusion?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'
> 
> Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
Click to expand...





 In what way don't they fit the definition of terrorist, as stated here by the UN

 Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for *political purposes *are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
Click to expand...


No, it is the Palestinians' war, or, more accurately, another sporadic outburst of a 66-year-old Palestinian asymetrical guerrilla.

Lay down your arms. You are beaten. Or die. Your choice. And  a matter of little importance to much of the rest of the world.

You hsve been unprepared and vicious and foolish and blaming everyone else in the world except yourselves, and intruding on the pesce of the world in great disproportion to your size and importance on the world stage.

The world is has been dealing with your whiny shit for 66 years and has grown tired of it. Even the Egyptians and Jordanians have given up on you and fence you off and blockade you and collaborate with the saner and far more trustworthy and congenial Israelis.

Donor exhaustion.

Your terrorist actions outside Israel in yesrs past have put the mark of Cain on you.

You never had strong support outside of Islam and pissant initiatives like BDS are far too littlr far too late and will fizxle and will not be enough to save you.

You are a dying proto-stste thst never was, and, like a drowning man,  you are grasping at straws like BDS and UN pseudo-recognition, and cannot see how inadequate and pathetic snd ridiculous and laughable that is.

 You have lost. There is no way to turn this around. And the scraps of land still left to you are simply not worth it. Further resistance is pointless.

Time to face Reality. Lay down your arms. Emmigrate.  Build a happier future, elsewhere.

Live.

Sent from my SPH-M830 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> No-one calls it "occupied territory" except idiots and the uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then: if its not occupied territory then its part of Israel and the Palestinians are Citizens or Apartheid? What is your conclusion?
Click to expand...


It's disputed territory, like Crimea, Chechnya, Northern Ireland or Northern Cyprus.


----------



## pbel

ForeverYoung436 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No-one calls it "occupied territory" except idiots and the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then: if its not occupied territory then its part of Israel and the Palestinians are Citizens or Apartheid? What is your conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's disputed territory, like Crimea, Chechnya, Northern Ireland or Northern Cyprus.
Click to expand...


Who disputes it?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PA is the governing for e of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Just because you're pissed that he has surpassed his term, doesnt change anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the PA control its borders?
> Control its airspace?
> Control its imports and exports?
> Control its travel and tourism?
Click to expand...





It has no borders so it cant control them

Not while it is occupied territory

to a certain extent Yes

to a certain extent yes

 Until it complies with the terms of the UN charter, Geneva Conventions and ceases all belligerence and terrorism it will not achieve self determination as envisaged by the UN. Nor will it achieve full control of its own destiny


----------



## ForeverYoung436

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR][/SIZE]
> 
> 
> Then: if its not occupied territory then its part of Israel and the Palestinians are Citizens or Apartheid? What is your conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's disputed territory, like Crimea, Chechnya, Northern Ireland or Northern Cyprus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who disputes it?
Click to expand...


Rightist Israelis dispute it on the grounds that it should be a part of "Greater Israel" ( sounds like an empire).  Palestinians want the West Bank for a state.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
Click to expand...





So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.

 Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.
> 
> Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam
Click to expand...


Tinmore is not a Muslim, but he doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for them.  Not too bright.


----------



## P F Tinmore

pbel said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR][/SIZE]
> 
> 
> Then: if its not occupied territory then its part of Israel and the Palestinians are Citizens or Apartheid? What is your conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's disputed territory, like Crimea, Chechnya, Northern Ireland or Northern Cyprus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who disputes it?
Click to expand...


Israel says disputed.

The rest of the world says occupied.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you consider it name calling, doesnt make it so.
> 
> And yes , many Palestinians do fit that category. We already know you do t consider what many of them have do be terrorism, but it's not up to you to decide.
> Hamas and other Islamic groups have commited terrorist acts by attacking people in Israel without distinguishing between civilian and mitary targets and not trying to avoid  civilian targets in order to achieve their political goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you have said it now prove it.
Click to expand...





 Very easy here it is from their own mouths

The leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad again admits that the Israeli security fence built by Israel in Judea and Samaria prevents the terrorist organizations from reaching the heart of Israel to carry out suicide bombing attacks

 PIJ leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah was interviewed in Damascus by the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq. He said that the second intifada was currently characterized by rocket fire, which had replaced the previous stage of suicide bombing attacks. That, he said, was because the enemy [i.e., Israel] had found ways and means to protect itself from such attacks


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"



If the land was Jordan's and they don't seem to be asking for it back, why should anyone give to the Pals? Are they claiming the land as Jordanians? Apparently not, so wassup?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.
> 
> Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tinmore is not a Muslim, but he doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for them.  Not too bright.
Click to expand...


I don't view children as legitimate targets and the Palestinians do not either. I don't recall any Palestinian attack that targeted children.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. They should not have them in Israel's war zone.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the land was Jordan's and they don't seem to be asking for it back, why should anyone give to the Pals? Are they claiming the land as Jordanians? Apparently not, so wassup?
Click to expand...


In 1988, Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank (except for the Temple Mount).


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.
> 
> Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore is not a Muslim, but he doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for them.  Not too bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't view children as legitimate targets and the Palestinians do not either. *I don't recall any Palestinian attack that targeted children*.
> 
> Children are the responsibility of their parents. They should not have them in Israel's war zone.
Click to expand...


Does blowing up busses count in your sharia-loving world?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
Click to expand...




 So when did Israel declare war on islam and Palestine ?

 provide a link from a credible source that details the declaration of war.

 My link is the UN archives were the arab league declares war on the Jews on behalf of Palestine and that it has never been fully rescinded 


 So it is the Palestinians war and only the Palestinians can stop it.............


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'
> 
> Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what way don't they fit the definition of terrorist, as stated here by the UN
> 
> Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for *political purposes *are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them
Click to expand...


They don't mention self defense.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way don't they fit the definition of terrorist, as stated here by the UN
> 
> Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for *political purposes *are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't mention self defense.
Click to expand...


Israel hasn't attacked them first in like, forever. Get a grip, dude.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Israel declare war on islam and Palestine ?
> 
> provide a link from a credible source that details the declaration of war.
> 
> My link is the UN archives were the arab league declares war on the Jews on behalf of Palestine and that it has never been fully rescinded
> 
> 
> So it is the Palestinians war and only the Palestinians can stop it.............
Click to expand...


And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

Oh, wait...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians?
> 
> Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
Click to expand...





A lot actually as it is against International Law to wage war on civilians, just as it is against International law to commit terrorist acts on civilians. It does not matter that the country is occupying the land, any attacks on civilians will just tighten the noose as defined in the Geneva conventions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way don't they fit the definition of terrorist, as stated here by the UN
> 
> Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for *political purposes *are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't mention self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel hasn't attacked them first in like, forever. Get a grip, dude.
Click to expand...


It is still self defense until Israel leaves Palestine.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Israel declare war on islam and Palestine ?
> 
> provide a link from a credible source that details the declaration of war.
> 
> My link is the UN archives were the arab league declares war on the Jews on behalf of Palestine and that it has never been fully rescinded
> 
> 
> So it is the Palestinians war and only the Palestinians can stop it.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs can surrender and end the war, just like Japan did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have surrendered too. It would have saved many lives.
Click to expand...





 Who is this "we"


----------



## ForeverYoung436

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Israel declare war on islam and Palestine ?
> 
> provide a link from a credible source that details the declaration of war.
> 
> My link is the UN archives were the arab league declares war on the Jews on behalf of Palestine and that it has never been fully rescinded
> 
> 
> So it is the Palestinians war and only the Palestinians can stop it.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?
Click to expand...


He believes the Zionists took over the U.S. in that year.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure if you re being serious or not. Also, you still havent proven it OR answered my question about Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of international law was written *because *of Germany.
Click to expand...




 And the arabs are going down the same road, while ignoring International Law until they are on the receiving end.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians?
> 
> Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot actually as it is against International Law to wage war on civilians, just as it is against International law to commit terrorist acts on civilians. It does not matter that the country is occupying the land, any attacks on civilians will just tighten the noose as defined in the Geneva conventions.
Click to expand...




> Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and* (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories **(excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).*
> 
> </title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=



*What else you got?*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do. I fully support and promote BDS as a peaceful solution.
> 
> What are you doing for peace? What peace initiatives do you support?
Click to expand...





Even though it harms the Palestinians and the Palestinian economy. And now most countries are making BDS illegal and arresting those that incite racism as a result.


----------



## GibsonSG

ForeverYoung436 said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> 
> 
> Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He believes the Zionists took over the U.S. in that year.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, anyone reading your posts for the first time would get the idea that you espouse sabotage, rockets, raids on settlers, car bombing, suicide bombing, and other atrocities as a means of "resistance". I agree that peace talks are a sham and that they are only held in order for the Arabs to make promises and agreements to appease the world only to renege everything. You must set your goal on peace and not "resistance". Or that "self-determination" bull crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I fully support and promote BDS as a peaceful solution.
> 
> What are you doing for peace? What peace initiatives do you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go again! BDS is not defensive.It's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.
Click to expand...





The simple answer is for all Israeli companies to state that in future they will not employ any Palestinians and will relocate into Israel proper. If they cant find the workforce then relocate to any nation that makes BDS an illegal racist group and employ the people.

 Should cause a lot of controversy around the world when the Palestinians find they are unemployed and destitute, and no company will provide employment opportunities because of BDS


----------



## pbel

GibsonSG said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He believes the Zionists took over the U.S. in that year.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well Zionists through AIPAC have taken over the US policies in the ME through this lobby for a foreign power, they contribute more campaign contributions than anyone else, certainly first or second.

All for a foreign power which sabotage efforts of peace by America and clearly against our interests.

America needs to remove this cancer with campaign finance reform.


----------



## P F Tinmore

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the land was Jordan's and they don't seem to be asking for it back, why should anyone give to the Pals? Are they claiming the land as Jordanians? Apparently not, so wassup?
Click to expand...


Because Jordan occupied Palestinian land. They attempted to annex it but failed.

Israel won the occupation of Palestinian land in 1967.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Please read this carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The west Bank was not Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom Website:
> 
> (Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine of the Two Banks)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the West Bank territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
> 
> *On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.*
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordans lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Tragedy of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Notice that the decision included participation by the "Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank" in the decision to annex.  This is called exercising the right of self-determination.
> 
> Arab Palestinian revisionist often like to omit the fact that they were part of the process and that they voted for annexation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
Click to expand...






 The Palestinians exercised their right to self determination in being annexed to Jordan. It does not matter on iota what the rest of the world thought as long as the people who lived there exercised that right. There is no precedence in International law that said the Palestinians had to take up a new nation, they could just as easily have amalgamated with an existing one. So in essence right up until Jordan decided to cast that west bank adrift it was Jordanian land and the inhabitants were Jordanian. This was the case right up until October 1994 when Jordan relinquished its control of the west bank and placed it into the hands of its populace. So from that time on it became known as Palestine .

 Answer your question ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go again! BDS is not defensive.It's another provocation. I'm inclined to believe that you are just another two-bit tinhorn warmonger.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost forgot. I support peace thru superior firepower. How 'bout them apples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> The Palestine side promotes peace, justice, and equality in compliance with international law.
> 
> The Israeli side promotes death and ethnic cleansing in violation of international law.
> 
> That tells us something.
Click to expand...





If Palestine promotes peace in compliance with international law then let them put down their weapons and denounce all acts of belligerence.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the land was Jordan's and they don't seem to be asking for it back, why should anyone give to the Pals? Are they claiming the land as Jordanians? Apparently not, so wassup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Jordan occupied Palestinian land. They attempted to annex it but failed.
> 
> Israel won the occupation of Palestinian land in 1967.
Click to expand...


So you finally admitted that Israel won the war in 1967.  They win in 1948 too.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the land was Jordan's and they don't seem to be asking for it back, why should anyone give to the Pals? Are they claiming the land as Jordanians? Apparently not, so wassup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Jordan occupied Palestinian land. They attempted to annex it but failed.
> 
> Israel won the occupation of Palestinian land in 1967.
Click to expand...

To the victor go the spoils. Tough luck for you and your pedophile sharia friends. Or are you giving your land back to the indians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Israel declare war on islam and Palestine ?
> 
> provide a link from a credible source that details the declaration of war.
> 
> My link is the UN archives were the arab league declares war on the Jews on behalf of Palestine and that it has never been fully rescinded
> 
> 
> So it is the Palestinians war and only the Palestinians can stop it.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?
Click to expand...


A little off topic but since you ask.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmtLvy8icQ]G Edward Griffin: Speech The Creature From Jekyll Island - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.
> 
> Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore is not a Muslim, but he doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for them.  Not too bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't view children as legitimate targets and the Palestinians do not either. I don't recall any Palestinian attack that targeted children.
> 
> Children are the responsibility of their parents. They should not have them in Israel's war zone.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, you can't be serious! But then again, you believe in the Easter groundhog.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Oh, I'm quite clear on the matter.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please read this carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The west Bank was not Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> From the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom Website:
> 
> (Jordan - History - The Tragedy of Palestine of the Two Banks)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the West Bank territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
> 
> *On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.*
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordans lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ The Tragedy of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Notice that the decision included participation by the "Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank" in the decision to annex.  This is called exercising the right of self-determination.
> 
> Arab Palestinian revisionist often like to omit the fact that they were part of the process and that they voted for annexation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				History of Jordan - Disengagement from the West Bank said:
			
		

> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordans relationship with West Bank Palestinians.
> 
> Click here for His Majesty's Address to the Nation, July 31, 1988
> *SOURCE:* Official History Website


*(COMMENT)*

It was done this way to pave the way for the PLO to Declare Independence (Nov 88).  As you have made a point of in the past, recognition is not the prerequisite for independence and statehood.  It is called the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) because that is how the PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department and the International Court of Justice (2004) refer to it; as well as other organizations and agencies.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol are you saying that when Germany occupied Poland, that the citizens of Germany were not civilians?
> 
> Youve brought up the link that shows that citizens of the occupying power are not civilians, but nothing that shows that citizens in Israel proper, where there is no occupation are not civilians. Just another lie to add to my list of bold claims you made that you were wrong about
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Civilian, not engaged in the conflict, are never legitimate targets, no matter what their nationality or sovereign association; therefore, constant care must be taken when conducting military operations to spare nonmilitary objects and persons, and positive steps must be taken to avoid or minimize any civilian casualties or damage. The principle of proportionality must always be followed, which prohibits an attack when the expected collateral civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects is excessive or disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated by the attack.  

Nothing in international law permits the HAMAS Jihadist or PA Fedayeen to internally target civilians, or to indiscriminately fire upon civilian targets.  It simply is not allowed legally.  There is no such concept of "by any means necessary" in the settlement of territorial disputes.  The General Assembly Resolution 34/102 (A/RES/34/102) - Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States - "Calls upon all States to adhere strictly in their international relations to the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered."  This includes the States of Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988).  


Parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Adequate precautions shall be taken in this regard before launching an attack.  See ICRC - War and international humanitarian law

The International Committee of the Red Cross is regarded as the guardian of the Geneva Conventions and the various other treaties that constitute international humanitarian law. It cannot, however, act as either policeman or judge. These functions belong to governments, the parties to international treaties, who are required to prevent and put an end to violation of IHL. They have also an obligation to punish those responsible of what are known as grave breaches of IHL or war crimes.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't mention self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel hasn't attacked them first in like, forever. Get a grip, dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is still self defense until Israel leaves Palestine.
Click to expand...


How is launching rockets indiscrimnately self defence?? How are they defending themselves by doing that?? Do you realize how stupid that sounds??

In fact, not only are they NOT defending themselves, they are inviting more attacks


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> No-one calls it "occupied territory" except idiots and the uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then: if its not occupied territory then its part of Israel and the Palestinians are Citizens or Apartheid? What is your conclusion?
Click to expand...




It is part of Palestine that is occupied by Israeli forces under the remit of the Geneva Conventions. It is not part of Israel so is not classified by anyone other than idiots as apartheid.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.
> 
> Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore is not a Muslim, but he doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for them.  Not too bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't view children as legitimate targets and the Palestinians do not either. I don't recall any Palestinian attack that targeted children.
> 
> Children are the responsibility of their parents. They should not have them in Israel's war zone.
Click to expand...


A war zone implies there is a war. A war requires two belligerents. 

If you ever want your credibility to make some sort of a remarkable comeback, stop making crap up.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in effect you are saying that new born Israeli children are valid targets for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians can use illegal weapons to target Israeli children.
> 
> Sums up your evil mind perfectly and shows that you support genocide and mass murder in the name of islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore is not a Muslim, but he doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for them.  Not too bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't view children as legitimate targets and the Palestinians do not either. I don't recall any Palestinian attack that targeted children.
> 
> Children are the responsibility of their parents. They should not have them in Israel's war zone.
Click to expand...





 That is not what they are admitting

https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=689705&ct=4356675

 Iran-Backed Gaza Terrorist Group Admits to Deliberately Targeting Israeli School Children with Qassam Rockets.


By the same token Palestinians should not have children in their war zone either, yet they rely on them as weapons carriers and human shields. So if they get shot then the blame lies with the Palestinians and not the Israelis.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.
> 
> The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way don't they fit the definition of terrorist, as stated here by the UN
> 
> Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for *political purposes *are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't mention self defense.
Click to expand...




Read the definition again from the UN, it does not matter if it is self defence or aggression the Palestinians are guilty of terrorist acts for POLITICAL PURPOSES. So will you join in with all the civilised people of the world in condemning the terrorism coming from Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Israel's war. Only Israel can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when did Israel declare war on islam and Palestine ?
> 
> provide a link from a credible source that details the declaration of war.
> 
> My link is the UN archives were the arab league declares war on the Jews on behalf of Palestine and that it has never been fully rescinded
> 
> 
> So it is the Palestinians war and only the Palestinians can stop it.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Oh, wait...
Click to expand...





 No they started the war when they attacked the Jews in medina back in 627 C.E., and the war has raged ever since with mass murders and genocides of the Jews over the last 1400 years.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't mention self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel hasn't attacked them first in like, forever. Get a grip, dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is still self defense until Israel leaves Palestine.
Click to expand...




 Still does not excuse terrorism and targeting civilians, mainly children. That makes it a capital offence and if the last ruling nation had execution as the penalty for these acts then Israel ,is within its rights to execute any armed Palestinians out of uniform.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot actually as it is against International Law to wage war on civilians, just as it is against International law to commit terrorist acts on civilians. It does not matter that the country is occupying the land, any attacks on civilians will just tighten the noose as defined in the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and* (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories **(excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).*
> 
> </title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What else you got?*
Click to expand...




 The rest of the Geneva conventions that state Israel is within its rights to enforce martial law on the west bank, until such time as the belligerence has ceased for a period of 12 months. And no Israeli civilians in Israel proper can be targeted for attack by illegal weapons. Time for the UN to stop appeasing islam and tell them to leave or support the next resolution declaring war on all terrorist groups.


----------



## Hossfly

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel hasn't attacked them first in like, forever. Get a grip, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is still self defense until Israel leaves Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still does not excuse terrorism and targeting civilians, mainly children. That makes it a capital offence and if the last ruling nation had execution as the penalty for these acts then Israel ,is within its rights to execute any armed Palestinians out of uniform.
Click to expand...

Tinmore sez Palestinians don't target children. Is that the cannabis talking?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes the Zionists took over the U.S. in that year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Zionists through AIPAC have taken over the US policies in the ME through this lobby for a foreign power, they contribute more campaign contributions than anyone else, certainly first or second.
> 
> All for a foreign power which sabotage efforts of peace by America and clearly against our interests.
> 
> America needs to remove this cancer with campaign finance reform.
Click to expand...




 And still Israel is facing constant attack from the arab muslims. If the Jews did control the USA then they would have had them wipe out the west bank, gaza, Syria, iran and any other nation that threatened Israel. They would have forced the USA into attacking Germany in 1933 when the Nazis came to power, and saved 62 million lives. 

 Yet the reality is that islam pulls America's strings through its oil control and strategic position. The Saudis are allowed to build serious walls and defences inside the borders of yemen without a whisper being heard, stealing more land from Yemen than Israel has to exist on. Saudi instructs the USA to bomb Iraq and the USA goes in mob handed, all because saddam decided to sell his oil in Euro's and not dollars. 
 So take your head out of your arse and look at what is really going on out there.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read further. Nobody in the world, except Britain and Pakistan (???), recognized this annexation.
> 
> This begs a question. If this land was Jordan's and it was conquered by Israel in 1967, why is it called "occupied Palestinian territory?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the land was Jordan's and they don't seem to be asking for it back, why should anyone give to the Pals? Are they claiming the land as Jordanians? Apparently not, so wassup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Jordan occupied Palestinian land. They attempted to annex it but failed.
> 
> Israel won the occupation of Palestinian land in 1967.
Click to expand...





The Palestinians accepted the annexation and became Jordanian citizens. They were given the vote in the Jordanian elections and had a proportional number of representatives in the Jordan parliament.  It did not need any other recognition other than that of the Palestinians free determination which they exercised in full. They were offered a home in Jordan in 1967 after the war if they wanted it.  The occupation of the west bank is for the defence of Israel on initially two fronts  Jordan and Syria. Now it is reduced to one front and internal terrorism.

 Once again the Palestinians miss the chance to miss the chance


----------



## RoccoR

PF Tinmore, _et al,_

You are absolutely correct, and still entirely wrong in you application.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the occupying power. What difference does location make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot actually as it is against International Law to wage war on civilians, just as it is against International law to commit terrorist acts on civilians. It does not matter that the country is occupying the land, any attacks on civilians will just tighten the noose as defined in the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and* (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories **(excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).*
> 
> </title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What else you got?*
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You citation make a distinction between the "enemy population" _(versus Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force)_ protected under the Geneva Convention from excesses from the Occupation Force.  But the citizens from the country of the Occupation Force enjoy the protections of their home country; not occupation law.

Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force are protected by civil laws _(both military, local civil and homeland law)_ and Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.

Again, as you say ... your rebuttal is irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He believes the Zionists took over the U.S. in that year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Zionists through AIPAC have taken over the US policies in the ME through this lobby for a foreign power, they contribute more campaign contributions than anyone else, certainly first or second.
> 
> All for a foreign power which sabotage efforts of peace by America and clearly against our interests.
> 
> America needs to remove this cancer with campaign finance reform.
Click to expand...


Of course they do Pbel  

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy, stupid..


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Zionists through AIPAC have taken over the US policies in the ME through this lobby for a foreign power, they contribute more campaign contributions than anyone else, certainly first or second.
> 
> All for a foreign power which sabotage efforts of peace by America and clearly against our interests.
> 
> America needs to remove this cancer with campaign finance reform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do Pbel
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy, stupid..
Click to expand...


As Israel keeps backstabbing America  as it is today with Obama, it will happen it time as it has happened from time immemorial. Read your history dopey.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> PF Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You are absolutely correct, and still entirely wrong in you application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot actually as it is against International Law to wage war on civilians, just as it is against International law to commit terrorist acts on civilians. It does not matter that the country is occupying the land, any attacks on civilians will just tighten the noose as defined in the Geneva conventions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and* (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories **(excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).*
> 
> </title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What else you got?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You citation make a distinction between the "enemy population" _(versus Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force)_ protected under the Geneva Convention from excesses from the Occupation Force.  But the citizens from the country of the Occupation Force enjoy the protections of their home country; not occupation law.
> 
> Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force are protected by civil laws _(both military, local civil and homeland law)_ and Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.
> 
> Again, as you say ... your rebuttal is irrelevant.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.

And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Zionists through AIPAC have taken over the US policies in the ME through this lobby for a foreign power, they contribute more campaign contributions than anyone else, certainly first or second.
> 
> All for a foreign power which sabotage efforts of peace by America and clearly against our interests.
> 
> America needs to remove this cancer with campaign finance reform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do Pbel
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy, stupid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Israel keeps backstabbing America  as it is today with Obama, it will happen it time as it has happened from time immemorial. Read your history dopey.
Click to expand...


Keep making up and fabricating stories, it suits you well, stupid.

America and Israel are Allies, with no end in site. And some of you. Tax money goes to Israel . 

Now how bout dem apples, pro philistine dummie????


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You are absolutely correct, and still entirely wrong in you application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What else you got?*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You citation make a distinction between the "enemy population" _(versus Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force)_ protected under the Geneva Convention from excesses from the Occupation Force.  But the citizens from the country of the Occupation Force enjoy the protections of their home country; not occupation law.
> 
> Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force are protected by civil laws _(both military, local civil and homeland law)_ and Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.
> 
> Again, as you say ... your rebuttal is irrelevant.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.
> 
> And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.
Click to expand...


Ok, but what does that have to do with Rocco dismantling your lies?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You are absolutely correct, and still entirely wrong in you application.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You citation make a distinction between the "enemy population" _(versus Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force)_ protected under the Geneva Convention from excesses from the Occupation Force.  But the citizens from the country of the Occupation Force enjoy the protections of their home country; not occupation law.
> 
> Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force are protected by civil laws _(both military, local civil and homeland law)_ and Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.
> 
> Again, as you say ... your rebuttal is irrelevant.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.
> 
> And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, but what does that have to do with Rocco dismantling your lies?
Click to expand...


Which lie?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.
> 
> And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what does that have to do with Rocco dismantling your lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which lie?
Click to expand...


You must be illiterate as Roccor always responds to your posts and quotes you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what does that have to do with Rocco dismantling your lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be illiterate as Roccor always responds to your posts and quotes you.
Click to expand...


If you don't know just say so.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be illiterate as Roccor always responds to your posts and quotes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't know just say so.
Click to expand...


THANK YOU!!!! 

Finally, this is what Ive been trying to tell you for a while now


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Not according to the real history books.


WTF do you know about "real" history books?

You get all your information from propaganda rags in the Israeli press.




Phoenall said:


> But you have ignored the much more prevalent mass murders of Jews by the Palestinians by not giving them equal credence.


Because it's not "more prevalent" and it's not equal.




Phoenall said:


> Now show were Jews mass murdered Palestinians using a credible source for your evidence of Zionist violence.


Deir Yassen and fuck you with your little "source game".  The truth or falsehood of a claim, does not rest solely on the website from which it came.  I'm not going to play your little word game bitch-boy, so fuck off!



Phoenall said:


> Not your usual NAZI and ISLAMONAZI sites that are known to be lying.  Lets see a near 200 mass murder tally by the "Zionists" that is not retaliation to ISLAMONAZI VIOLENT TERRORISM using illegal weapons aimed at children.


I love how you try to control ever facet of the conversation.  But that shit doesn't work with me.  I say what I want to say and nobody tells me different.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the real history books.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you know about "real" history books?
> 
> You get all your information from propaganda rags in the Israeli press.
> 
> WHENEVER SOMEONE SAYS THIS ABOUT PRO PALESTINIAN SITES YOU ATTACK THEM TOU FUCKIN HYPOCRITE
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have ignored the much more prevalent mass murders of Jews by the Palestinians by not giving them equal credence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's not "more prevalent" and it's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now show were Jews mass murdered Palestinians using a credible source for your evidence of Zionist violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deir Yassen and fuck you with your little "source game".  The truth or falsehood of a claim, does not rest solely on the website from which it came.  I'm not going to play your little word game bitch-boy, so fuck off!
> THIS COMMENT IS QUITE IRONIC CONSIDERING YOUR FIRST STATEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not your usual NAZI and ISLAMONAZI sites that are known to be lying.  Lets see a near 200 mass murder tally by the "Zionists" that is not retaliation to ISLAMONAZI VIOLENT TERRORISM using illegal weapons aimed at children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how you try to control ever facet of the conversation.  But that shit doesn't work with me.  I say what I want to say and nobody tells me different.
> 
> HE'S RIGHT, YOU ARE A SUPPORTER OF ISLAMO NAZIS
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. Fuck, you're ignorant.
> And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.
> 
> Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.


So you're saying, Palestinian's are not -

_*- constantly demonized
- blamed for all the problems in the country
- indefinitely detained without charges
- living by a different set of laws
- systematically being cleansed from the area*_​
You are saying none of that is true?

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> WHENEVER SOMEONE SAYS THIS ABOUT PRO PALESTINIAN SITES YOU ATTACK THEM TOU FUCKIN HYPOCRITE


That's because they are not pro Palestinian sites.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. Fuck, you're ignorant.
> And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.
> 
> Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying, Palestinian's are not -
> 
> _*- constantly demonized
> - blamed for all the problems in the country
> - indefinitely detained without charges
> - living by a different set of laws
> - systematically being cleansed from the area*_​
> You are saying none of that is true?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country

Yes some of them are detained without being formally charged. I dont support that but that has nothing to do with being compared to Nazis. Jews werent just detained for no reason, they were rounded up and massacred for no reason. Terrible, terrible comparison.

Those living under a different set of laws are not citizens of Israel. Jews who lived under a different set of laws WERE. 

No. The goal of the cleanser if to ultimately get rid of most if not all of the people being cleansed. Palestinian population has been INCREASING, not decreasing. Thats just another one of the many Palestinian myths.

You are disgusting for comparing Israelis to Nazis you sick fuck.

Let me know when Palestinians are starved to death in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire.
Let me know when they are gassed to death
Let me know when millions of them perish
Let me know when hundreds of thousands of them are packed packed PACKED to the max in a train being sent off to death camps
Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHENEVER SOMEONE SAYS THIS ABOUT PRO PALESTINIAN SITES YOU ATTACK THEM TOU FUCKIN HYPOCRITE
> 
> 
> 
> That's because they are not pro Palestinian sites.
Click to expand...


Then the sites you were talking about are not propaganda sites


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the real history books.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you know about "real" history books?
> 
> You get all your information from propaganda rags in the Israeli press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have ignored the much more prevalent mass murders of Jews by the Palestinians by not giving them equal credence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's not "more prevalent" and it's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now show were Jews mass murdered Palestinians using a credible source for your evidence of Zionist violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deir Yassen and fuck you with your little "source game".  The truth or falsehood of a claim, does not rest solely on the website from which it came.  I'm not going to play your little word game bitch-boy, so fuck off!
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not your usual NAZI and ISLAMONAZI sites that are known to be lying.  Lets see a near 200 mass murder tally by the "Zionists" that is not retaliation to ISLAMONAZI VIOLENT TERRORISM using illegal weapons aimed at children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how you try to control ever facet of the conversation.  But that shit doesn't work with me.  I say what I want to say and nobody tells me different.
Click to expand...


Very few people here, beyond the realm of pro-Palestinian posters, really give a rat's ass about your self-control. Your one-sided rants, your constant personal provocations, your profanity and your amateur-hour analysis of Israeli motives and actions and rights tell us all we need to know.

Sent from my SPH-M830 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Very few people here, beyond the realm of pro-Palestinian posters, really give a rat's ass about your self-control. Your one-sided rants, your constant personal provocations, your profanity and your amateur-hour analysis of Israeli motives and actions and rights tell us all we need to know.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-M830 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


WTF are you talking about, my analysis is kick-ass!


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Then the sites you were talking about are not propaganda sites


It doesn't work that way.

Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post are biased towards Israel.

The Washington Post and NYT's are biased towards right-wing America.

The UN, Human Rights Watch, Physician's for Human Rights, the ICRC and Rabbi's for Human Rights, are not a pro-Palestinian propaganda sites.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country


They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.




toastman said:


> Yes some of them are detained without being formally charged. I dont support that but that has nothing to do with being compared to Nazis.


It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.

It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution. 




toastman said:


> Jews werent just detained for no reason, they were rounded up and massacred for no reason.


They were detained because they were jews.   




toastman said:


> Terrible, terrible comparison.


When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?




toastman said:


> Those living under a different set of laws are not citizens of Israel. Jews who lived under a different set of laws WERE.


I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.




toastman said:


> No. The goal of the cleanser if to ultimately get rid of most if not all of the people being cleansed. Palestinian population has been INCREASING, not decreasing. Thats just another one of the many Palestinian myths.


Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.




toastman said:


> You are disgusting for comparing Israelis to Nazis you sick fuck.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



toastman said:


> Let me know when Palestinians are starved to death in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire.


They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.



toastman said:


> Let me know when they are gassed to death



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrD9hZfExyo]IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube[/ame]

You were saying...



toastman said:


> Let me know when millions of them perish


And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.

Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.



toastman said:


> Let me know when hundreds of thousands of them are packed packed PACKED to the max in a train being sent off to death camps


Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.



toastman said:


> Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money


What do you think the BDS movement is about?


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes some of them are detained without being formally charged. I dont support that but that has nothing to do with being compared to Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.
> 
> It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> They were detained because they were jews.
> 
> 
> When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?
> 
> 
> I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.
> 
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> 
> They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrD9hZfExyo]IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You were saying...
> 
> And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.
> 
> Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when hundreds of thousands of them are packed packed PACKED to the max in a train being sent off to death camps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the BDS movement is about?
Click to expand...


Billy is quite amusing, and we should thank him for entertaining us.  Has anyone seen his outrage to the Catholics being killed in the Middle East and their churches destroyed?  Has anyone even seen his outrage when Muslims are busy killing other Muslims.  That is why anyone with brains can take Billy's fake outrage and let it go in one ear out the other.  Just in Syria alone way over a hundred thousand people have been killed, probably a horrendous amount of people have been wounded, and there are over a million refugees.  And here is Billy up on step once again regarding Israel, and whatever is happening in the rest of the Middle East is no concern to him at all.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Billy is quite amusing, and we should thank him for entertaining us.  Has anyone seen his outrage to the Catholics being killed in the Middle East and their churches destroyed?  Has anyone even seen his outrage when Muslims are busy killing other Muslims.  That is why anyone with brains can take Billy's fake outrage and let it go in one ear out the other.  Just in Syria alone way over a hundred thousand people have been killed, probably a horrendous amount of people have been wounded, and there are over a million refugees.  And here is Billy up on step once again regarding Israel, and whatever is happening in the rest of the Middle East is no concern to him at all.


Care to comment on the thread OP?


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. Fuck, you're ignorant.
> And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.
> 
> Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying, Palestinian's are not -_*- constantly demonized
> - blamed for all the problems in the country?*_​
Click to expand...

_*

Evidently not. According to you Israel is responsible for all the Palestinian's probs.   *_​


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes some of them are detained without being formally charged. I dont support that but that has nothing to do with being compared to Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.
> 
> It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> They were detained because they were jews.
> 
> 
> When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?
> 
> 
> I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.
> 
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> 
> They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrD9hZfExyo]IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You were saying...
> 
> And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.
> 
> Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when hundreds of thousands of them are packed packed PACKED to the max in a train being sent off to death camps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the BDS movement is about?
Click to expand...



That's simple. It's a place behind which pompous jackasses hide their anti-Semitism.

Indivisible Anti-Semitism | FrontPage Magazine

ASA Boycott of Israel Uses Testimony from Angela Davis | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Billo_Really

SAYIT said:


> That's simple. It's a place behind which pompous jackasses hide their anti-Semitism.
> 
> Indivisible Anti-Semitism | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> ASA Boycott of Israel Uses Testimony from Angela Davis | FrontPage Magazine


Boy, you are doing everything you can to make people hate jews.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Zionists through AIPAC have taken over the US policies in the ME through this lobby for a foreign power, they contribute more campaign contributions than anyone else, certainly first or second.
> 
> All for a foreign power which sabotage efforts of peace by America and clearly against our interests.
> 
> America needs to remove this cancer with campaign finance reform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do Pbel
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy, stupid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Israel keeps backstabbing America  as it is today with Obama, it will happen it time as it has happened from time immemorial. Read your history dopey.
Click to expand...




 Evidence from a reliable non pro Islamic site please


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> PF Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You are absolutely correct, and still entirely wrong in you application.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What else you got?*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You citation make a distinction between the "enemy population" _(versus Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force)_ protected under the Geneva Convention from excesses from the Occupation Force.  But the citizens from the country of the Occupation Force enjoy the protections of their home country; not occupation law.
> 
> Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force are protected by civil laws _(both military, local civil and homeland law)_ and Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.
> 
> Again, as you say ... your rebuttal is irrelevant.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.
> 
> And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.
Click to expand...





No they don't have the right to bomb busses and trains in the UK because of a "local problem" that is just pure terrorism for terrorism sake.
 And the terrorist label has been applied by many nations in light of the fact they are using terror tactics to force their religious and political agenda on others. So who are you to claim that they are wrong and you are right.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.
> 
> And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what does that have to do with Rocco dismantling your lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which lie?
Click to expand...





 That under the Geneva conventions Israeli civilians including children are valid military targets for terrorist attacks.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the real history books.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you know about "real" history books?
> 
> You get all your information from propaganda rags in the Israeli press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have ignored the much more prevalent mass murders of Jews by the Palestinians by not giving them equal credence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's not "more prevalent" and it's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now show were Jews mass murdered Palestinians using a credible source for your evidence of Zionist violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deir Yassen and fuck you with your little "source game".  The truth or falsehood of a claim, does not rest solely on the website from which it came.  I'm not going to play your little word game bitch-boy, so fuck off!
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not your usual NAZI and ISLAMONAZI sites that are known to be lying.  Lets see a near 200 mass murder tally by the "Zionists" that is not retaliation to ISLAMONAZI VIOLENT TERRORISM using illegal weapons aimed at children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love how you try to control ever facet of the conversation.  But that shit doesn't work with me.  I say what I want to say and nobody tells me different.
Click to expand...





 Wrong again as I get my details from the real history books

 What is it then when the Palestinians or their agents have mass murdered over 1 million Jews in the last 1400 years.   Yes you are right you don't give them an equal airing.

 Proven to be yet another BLOOD LIBEL 

 Because you know that you have lost the argument


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's simple. It's a place behind which pompous jackasses hide their anti-Semitism.
> 
> Indivisible Anti-Semitism | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> ASA Boycott of Israel Uses Testimony from Angela Davis | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you are doing everything you can to make people hate jews.
Click to expand...


I've never encountered an anti-Semitic twit who didn't have dozens of excuses for his bigotry, Bubba, and no one made you hate as you do.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. Fuck, you're ignorant.
> And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.
> 
> Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying, Palestinian's are not -
> 
> _*- constantly demonized
> - blamed for all the problems in the country
> - indefinitely detained without charges
> - living by a different set of laws
> - systematically being cleansed from the area*_​
> You are saying none of that is true?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...





 Yes and you have no evidence to support your false claims

 Israelis are constantly demonised by the likes of you as shown by your every post

 Israelis are constantly blamed for every problem by the likes of you

 They are arrested in the act of terrorism or attacking Israeli citizens

 That is the fault of their Government who institute different laws 

 Then why hasn't the population decreased instead of INCREASING


 So are you saying that you have done no research other than from ISLAMONAZI sites and that is were you get your information from. If you want the west bank to have the same Laws as Israel then tell the P.A. to hand it over.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHENEVER SOMEONE SAYS THIS ABOUT PRO PALESTINIAN SITES YOU ATTACK THEM TOU FUCKIN HYPOCRITE
> 
> 
> 
> That's because they are not pro Palestinian sites.
Click to expand...





 YEA SURE they are written by pro Palestinians or anti semitic groups like amnesty. Not once have you apologised for posting one of your JEW HATRED links when it was shown to be a LIE, proving that you are only interested in seeing the demise of Judaism to fulfil your warped NAZI POV


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very few people here, beyond the realm of pro-Palestinian posters, really give a rat's ass about your self-control. Your one-sided rants, your constant personal provocations, your profanity and your amateur-hour analysis of Israeli motives and actions and rights tell us all we need to know.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-M830 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about, my analysis is kick-ass!
Click to expand...




 Your behaviour is that of a spoilt brat that cant get their own way, you resort to anti social name calling and profanities if you don't get total agreement with your JEW HATRED and NAZI ANTI SEMITISM. 
   When it is shown that in one month Palestinians mass murdered 50,000 other Palestinians, more than Israel has killed in 66 years of defending itself from terrorist attacks, you totally ignore it as inconsequential and irrelevant because it is not the Jews involved.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the sites you were talking about are not propaganda sites
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't work that way.
> 
> Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post are biased towards Israel.
> 
> The Washington Post and NYT's are biased towards right-wing America.
> 
> The UN, Human Rights Watch, Physician's for Human Rights, the ICRC and Rabbi's for Human Rights, are not a pro-Palestinian propaganda sites.
Click to expand...




 Strange that as Haaretz posts more pro Palestinian reports than pro Israeli ones, it is known for its anti Semitic bias and anti Israeli reports. Much used by Nazi and right wing propagandists as a reliable source for news about Israeli wrongdoings

Ha'aretz Illustrates Its Own Bias | HonestReporting

 According to the story in Haaretz (republished from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which did not include a photo), the aforementioned Tracey Nelson worked for the New York Jewish Federation, yet nowhere is it stated that she is Jewish, let alone an ultra-orthodox male.

Haaretz simply illustrated its own bias when it comes to a story involving Jews, theft and money.

Had Haaretz bothered to find a photo of the real Tracey Nelson, this is what they would have found in the pages of the New York Daily News and elsewhere:







 NOT TRACEY NELSON AS PORTRAYED BY HAARETZ







 THE REAL TRACEY NELSON


 A good way to tell if the report is anti Jewish is if it uses the phrase  " from a Palestinian source" or some such term.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestinians started the war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> 
> 
> Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little off topic but since you ask.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmtLvy8icQ]G Edward Griffin: Speech The Creature From Jekyll Island - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Possibly the dumbest shit I've ever tried to watch.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes some of them are detained without being formally charged. I dont support that but that has nothing to do with being compared to Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.
> 
> It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> They were detained because they were jews.
> 
> 
> When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?
> 
> 
> I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.
> 
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> 
> They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrD9hZfExyo]IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You were saying...
> 
> And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.
> 
> Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when hundreds of thousands of them are packed packed PACKED to the max in a train being sent off to death camps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the BDS movement is about?
Click to expand...




 The Palestinians and their followers blame the Israelis, or as they prefer Zionists, for everything that has gone wrong.

 So where are the concentration camps set up by Israel's, when was the Israeli Krystalnacht and in which city did it happen. When was the Koran burning in public, when did the beatings start of Palestinians in Israel. The real Nazis in all this are the Palestinians but you are too stupid to see this.

 No they were mass slaughtered because the Germans were ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS, just as the modern day Palestinians are. Read their charters and the words of their leaders to see just how much like the Nazis they are.

Just your opinion based on your right wing propaganda and NAZI ANTI SEMITISM, gained by reading right wing hate sites and pro Palestinian sources

 Who only have a few differences in the laws, and those are in their favour.

 By their own people if you read the unbiased history books, and even Palestinians are saying they were told to leave for a short time so they could come back and take over the Jewish land and property.

 Your evidence of this is what, apart from the ISLAMONAZI lies you believe totally.

 Cant see any IDF in the clip, care to try again with a more credible one. I could claim that it was gazan terrorists firing tear gas at journalists and use the same clip.

 Just as there is no outrage from you when it is shown that Palestinians fire illegal weapons at Israeli children. In fact you see it as a reason to party when they do so. When the Palestinians slaughter Christians in gaza you say nothing because it is your beloved hero's doing the killings.  

After 66 years and all the propaganda spouted by the likes of you the Israelis are not being very good at this elimination lark. In fact they keep many of them alive by giving free medical treatment and free food.

 RACIST ANTI SEMITISM AGAINST THE JEWS AND TO KEEP THE PALESTINIANS AS DOWNTRODDEN AS POSSIBLE. Give them a decent life with decent wages and the whole lie collapses and the arab's have lost the media war.


----------



## Phoenall

SAYIT said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. Fuck, you're ignorant.
> And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.
> 
> Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying, Palestinian's are not -_*- constantly demonized
> - blamed for all the problems in the country?*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> Evidently not. According to you Israel is responsible for all the Palestinian's probs.   *_​
Click to expand...

_*




 While I blame it all on the stone age religion of the muslims that has "KILL THE JEWS" as one of its major commands.*_​


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's simple. It's a place behind which pompous jackasses hide their anti-Semitism.
> 
> Indivisible Anti-Semitism | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> ASA Boycott of Israel Uses Testimony from Angela Davis | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you are doing everything you can to make people hate jews.
Click to expand...





 Just your opinion, that and $1 will get you a joe blob in gaza


----------



## P F Tinmore

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear one thing up for me, why did the US die in 1913 like it says on your headstone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little off topic but since you ask.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RmtLvy8icQ]G Edward Griffin: Speech The Creature From Jekyll Island - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly the dumbest shit I've ever tried to watch.
Click to expand...


So you like people stealing from you.

Cool.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little off topic but since you ask.
> 
> G Edward Griffin: Speech The Creature From Jekyll Island - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the dumbest shit I've ever tried to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you like people stealing from you.
> 
> Cool.
Click to expand...


I don't owe any money to the bank for a mortgage or otherwise. You fail. Again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

GibsonSG said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the dumbest shit I've ever tried to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you like people stealing from you.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't owe any money to the bank for a mortgage or otherwise. You fail. Again.
Click to expand...


I don't either but when you go buy that $2 loaf of bread and it costs you 3 bucks, figure out how that happened.


----------



## GibsonSG

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like people stealing from you.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't owe any money to the bank for a mortgage or otherwise. You fail. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't either but when you go buy that $2 loaf of bread and it costs you 3 bucks, figure out how that happened.
Click to expand...


Bread around here doesn't cost $3. You fail. Again.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes some of them are detained without being formally charged. I dont support that but that has nothing to do with being compared to Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.
> 
> It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> They were detained because they were jews.
> 
> 
> When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?
> 
> 
> I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.
> 
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> 
> They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrD9hZfExyo]IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You were saying...
> 
> And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.
> 
> Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when hundreds of thousands of them are packed packed PACKED to the max in a train being sent off to death camps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the BDS movement is about?
Click to expand...


Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like people stealing from you.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't owe any money to the bank for a mortgage or otherwise. You fail. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't either but when you go buy that $2 loaf of bread and it costs you 3 bucks, figure out how that happened.
Click to expand...


I'd rather live in capitalist America than a third-world nation anyday.  Maybe a loaf of bread costs a dollar more, but at least I'm not starving to death.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like people stealing from you.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't owe any money to the bank for a mortgage or otherwise. You fail. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't either but when you go buy that $2 loaf of bread and it costs you 3 bucks, figure out how that happened.
Click to expand...





 Simple the racist BDS movement has forced the companies to buy their ingredients from a higher priced source, costing everyone money. On top of which the quality is much reduced.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.
> 
> It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> They were detained because they were jews.
> 
> 
> When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?
> 
> 
> I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.
> 
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> 
> They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrD9hZfExyo]IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You were saying...
> 
> And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.
> 
> Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.
> 
> Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when Israel send tens of thousands of Palestinians to work i. Sweat shops for no money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the BDS movement is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???
Click to expand...

Of course.

Anything to demonize the Israelis.

Most of the Godwin-esque bile being vomited-up by the pro-Palestinian side is like that.

Weak-assed analogies and even weaker and more embarrassingly amateurish segues.

Whatever it takes, to set up the context, to throw another rock.

Most of it's funny, but it does tend to stink-up the place after a while, and requires a hosing-down from time to time.

Their wild-assed and hairy claims about Displacement and Casus Belli and who-started-what are far more worthy of a Josef Goebbels or Stalin or (now) Putin.

Funniest of all is the idea that they keep pitchin' the same tired old shit and don't realize that people stopped listening decades ago.


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with being compared to the Nazis.  How do you think the Holocaust started?  It didn't just happen overnight.  There were 10 years of hate and propaganda ramping the country up towards the genocide.  That's the period we have now in Israel.  Not the death camp and oven burning phase, but the ramping up of hate and propaganda, that completely numbs the Israeli population.  That's why no matter how heinous the crime is against a Palestinian, there is no outrage in Israel proper.
> 
> It's systemic and government driven, just like it was in Nazi Germany leading up to the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> They were detained because they were jews.
> 
> 
> When you're doing the same things Nazi Germany did, what's terrible about the comparison?
> 
> 
> I was talking about Israeli-arabs, who are citizens.
> 
> 
> Tell that to the over 700,000 driven from their homes in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
> 
> They are.  In the Gazan ghetto.
> 
> 
> 
> IDF Fire Tear Gas at Journalists - YouTube
> 
> You were saying...
> 
> And if they are, you won't think twice about it.  There will be no outrage from you.  No protest.  No thoughts of something being terribly wrong here.  Nothing.  No reaction.
> 
> Just like average Germans were, when their jewish neighbors disappeared all of sudden.
> 
> Like I said, we're not at that stage yet, but we're heading in that direction.
> 
> What do you think the BDS movement is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Anything to demonize the Israelis.
> 
> Most of the Godwin-esque bile being vomited-up by the pro-Palestinian side is like that.
> 
> Weak-assed analogies and even weaker and more embarrassingly amateurish segues.
> 
> Whatever it takes, to set up the context, to throw another rock.
> 
> Most of it's funny, but it does tend to stink-up the place after a while, and requires a hosing-down from time to time.
> 
> Their wild-assed and hairy claims about Displacement and Casus Belli and who-started-what are far more worthy of a Josef Goebbels or Stalin or (now) Putin.
> 
> Funniest of all is the idea that they keep pitchin' the same tired old shit and don't realize that people stopped listening decades ago.
Click to expand...


What he said is the kind of shit I would expect from Sherri.


----------



## RoccoR

Billo_Really, toastman,  _et al,_

This is a common misconception; and a crutch.  It is used by the Hostile Arab Palestinian and pro-Palestinian Movements to justify and substantiate their continued hostilities and criminal activities against the decisions made nearly a century ago, to protect the culture and people of the Jewish Nation, long under persecution and diaspora. 



Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not blamed for all the problems of the country
> 
> 
> 
> They're blamed for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The consequences we see unfolding today, whether we look at the establishment of a Jewish National Home, or the particular situation revolving around the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not _(as our friend Billo_Really would have us believe)_ totally to be laid at the feet of the Jewish People _(or the greater Israeli community)_.

While it can be said that the Jewish made have been the spark behind the idea of rallying the Jewish People and returning them to the Middle East, the concept fuel would have been more the benevolent action of Sultan Bayezid II (1447 - 1512) and maybe even to a time of his predecessor Sultan Fatih Mehmed (1429 - 1481).  For it was the Sultan, the sovereign of the Empire _(including Palestine)_ that issue the first invitations to the Jewish People to return _("Listen sons of the Hebrew who live in my country...May all of you who desire come to Constantinople and may the rest of your people find here a shelter.")_.  It was the Sultan, that dispatch Kemal Reis (1451-1511), Grand Ottoman Navy, and Commander of the Mediterranean Turkish Fleet, to rescue both Muslims and Jews _(people of the Semitic-language)_ (1490-1492) escaping persecution throughout Europe during the Spanish and Goa Inquisitions by Christians.  Admiral Reis, under Imperial Orders, returned them to the provinces of the Ottoman Empire which welcomed them.  However, the Sultan did not approve of a separate Jewish National Home in Palestine _(the Sultan wanted integration not separation)_.  This was made plain in the meeting between Sultan Abdulhamid II (1840-1918) and Theodor Herzl; even when Herzl offered £150M pounds sterling in gold in 1901 _(the equiv of £1.1T today)_.   This became one of the reasons that Jewish gradually shifted their support away from the Ottoman Empire in favor of the British. 

The Allied Powers noted that during the Middle East Pogrom by Arabs (1840s-1907 specifically targeting Jews), the Jewish culture and communities paid a heavy price; mostly over religious differences.  By the time WWI broke-out, the Jewish People had developed a rapport with the Allied Powers such that the sympathy expressed in the Balfour Declaration and San Remo Convention began to materialize.  However, the sentiments expressed as causes in the Middle East Pogrom by Arabs continued to grow.

Then came the holocaust and WWII, and the historical post-War decision of November 1947.

---->  Can anyone lay blame "for 100% of any problem regarding Israeli/Palestinian issues," _(Billo_Really)_ at the feet of the Jews and Israel?  There are so many factors, and so many influences, to this dynamic "issue" _(if that is what you want to call it)_, that only a fool would suggest it.  Certainly the Hostile Arabs of the League, as well as those of Palestine, made vast contributions to the scope and nature of hostilities.

No one has clean hands _(including Israel)_; but, least of all is the ----> Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Rocco, the problem with people like Billo is that every time we bring up something that the Gazans have to Israel, weather its a barrage of rockets or a militant sniping an Israeli worker by the separation fence, they will always justify the hostility by saying that it was i. Retaliation cir this and that. Another one for their justifications is that these hostilities are a means of defence . Well, the latter is more of Tinmores style


----------



## Kondor3

Palestinian Mentality.

Everything we do is self-defense.

Everything you do is aggression.

None of this is our fault.

Everything is your fault.

We did nothing wrong.

You are evil.

We will survive.

You are doomed.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, endless fucking blah...


----------



## RoccoR

Kondor,  _et al,_

Ah, yes...



Kondor3 said:


> Palestinian Mentality.
> 
> Everything we do is self-defense.
> 
> Everything you do is aggression.
> 
> None of this is our fault.
> 
> Everything is your fault.
> 
> We did nothing wrong.
> 
> You are evil.
> 
> We will survive.
> 
> You are doomed.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, endless fucking blah...​


*(COMMENT)*

The Sonata of the Virtual Palestinian Victim (VpV).  Maybe you can just imagine traditional Italian violin music playing in the background as an Arab ensemble of high-pitched whining Palestinian voices plaintively sing out the (zaghruta) ululation.

[ame="http://youtu.be/Md7OvU5JIcI"]http://youtu.be/Md7OvU5JIcI[/ame]​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> Kondor,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah, yes...
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Mentality.
> 
> Everything we do is self-defense.
> 
> Everything you do is aggression.
> 
> None of this is our fault.
> 
> Everything is your fault.
> 
> We did nothing wrong.
> 
> You are evil.
> 
> We will survive.
> 
> You are doomed.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, endless fucking blah...​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Sonata of the Virtual Palestinian Victim (VpV).  Maybe you can just imagine traditional Italian violin music playing in the background as an Arab ensemble of high-pitched whining Palestinian voices plaintively sing out the (zaghruta) ululation.
> 
> [ame="http://youtu.be/Md7OvU5JIcI"]http://youtu.be/Md7OvU5JIcI[/ame]​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That's Sherri Muffinpan! I'd recognize her trill in a tornado!


----------



## toastman

RoccoR said:


> Kondor,  _et al,_
> 
> Ah, yes...
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Mentality.
> 
> Everything we do is self-defense.
> 
> Everything you do is aggression.
> 
> None of this is our fault.
> 
> Everything is your fault.
> 
> We did nothing wrong.
> 
> You are evil.
> 
> We will survive.
> 
> You are doomed.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, endless fucking blah...​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Sonata of the Virtual Palestinian Victim (VpV).  Maybe you can just imagine traditional Italian violin music playing in the background as an Arab ensemble of high-pitched whining Palestinian voices plaintively sing out the (zaghruta) ululation.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/Md7OvU5JIcI]Ululation (high-pitched tongue trill) 1 - YouTube[/ame]​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

P F Tinmore said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little off topic but since you ask.
> 
> G Edward Griffin: Speech The Creature From Jekyll Island - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the dumbest shit I've ever tried to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you like people stealing from you.
> 
> Cool.
Click to expand...


Tx. Tinnie, that was a good analysis of who rules America, Wall Street via the Federal Reserve to cull us all, for the Oligarchs...


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???


No.

Next question?


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Of course.
> 
> Anything to demonize the Israelis.
> 
> Most of the Godwin-esque bile being vomited-up by the pro-Palestinian side is like that.
> 
> Weak-assed analogies and even weaker and more embarrassingly amateurish segues.
> 
> Whatever it takes, to set up the context, to throw another rock.
> 
> Most of it's funny, but it does tend to stink-up the place after a while, and requires a hosing-down from time to time.
> 
> Their wild-assed and hairy claims about Displacement and Casus Belli and who-started-what are far more worthy of a Josef Goebbels or Stalin or (now) Putin.
> 
> Funniest of all is the idea that they keep pitchin' the same tired old shit and don't realize that people stopped listening decades ago.


Godwin never dealt with whether the comparison is valid, which, in this case, it is.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Anything to demonize the Israelis.
> 
> Most of the Godwin-esque bile being vomited-up by the pro-Palestinian side is like that.
> 
> Weak-assed analogies and even weaker and more embarrassingly amateurish segues.
> 
> Whatever it takes, to set up the context, to throw another rock.
> 
> Most of it's funny, but it does tend to stink-up the place after a while, and requires a hosing-down from time to time.
> 
> Their wild-assed and hairy claims about Displacement and Casus Belli and who-started-what are far more worthy of a Josef Goebbels or Stalin or (now) Putin.
> 
> Funniest of all is the idea that they keep pitchin' the same tired old shit and don't realize that people stopped listening decades ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Godwin never dealt with whether the comparison is valid, which, in this case, it is.
Click to expand...

Validity is in the eye of the beholder.

US foreign policy confirms the Opposition Viewpoint on the subject.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> What he said is the kind of shit I would expect from Sherri.


It's not shit!  Because if it was shit, you'd be able to successfully argue against each point. Instead, you can't even bring yourself to address any of the points I made.

All you can muster is personal attacks, because the shit I laid down, was good shit!


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Validity is in the eye of the beholder.


Not in this case.




Kondor3 said:


> US foreign policy confirms the Opposition Viewpoint on the subject.


WTF does that have to do with the Israeli's treating the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews?


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Validity is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> US foreign policy confirms the Opposition Viewpoint on the subject. [/quote
> 
> ]WTF does that have to do with the Israeli's treating the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billy, since you are on your Nazi kick once again, I really think you should do some research and find Catholic organizations which are reporting on the murders of Catholics in the Middle East to see what is really happening.  By comparing the Israeli Jews to Nazis is really very silly of you.  If you, as a Catholic, can't post what is happening to Catholics in the Muslim world, then it only shows the readers that the bottom line is that you are an anti-Semite who only wants to concentrate on Israel and the Palestinians.  If the Pope himself is very worried about what is happening in the Middle East, then you should too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Validity is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.



> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> US foreign policy confirms the Opposition Viewpoint on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the Israeli's treating the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews?
Click to expand...

The Israelis are not treating the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.

US Foreign Policy towards Israel confirms that perspective.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question?
Click to expand...




 Are you 100% positive that your reply to the question when have the Jews gassed anyone and you replied with a video showing crowd dispersal using tear gas does not say that you did.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Anything to demonize the Israelis.
> 
> Most of the Godwin-esque bile being vomited-up by the pro-Palestinian side is like that.
> 
> Weak-assed analogies and even weaker and more embarrassingly amateurish segues.
> 
> Whatever it takes, to set up the context, to throw another rock.
> 
> Most of it's funny, but it does tend to stink-up the place after a while, and requires a hosing-down from time to time.
> 
> Their wild-assed and hairy claims about Displacement and Casus Belli and who-started-what are far more worthy of a Josef Goebbels or Stalin or (now) Putin.
> 
> Funniest of all is the idea that they keep pitchin' the same tired old shit and don't realize that people stopped listening decades ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Godwin never dealt with whether the comparison is valid, which, in this case, it is.
Click to expand...




 Only if you are a NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATER.  If you are sane then the comparison is a pack of lies


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Validity is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> US foreign policy confirms the Opposition Viewpoint on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the Israeli's treating the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews?
Click to expand...




 Just your ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED POV, which is as worthless as a Palestinians promises


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Validity is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> US foreign policy confirms the Opposition Viewpoint on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the Israeli's treating the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just your ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED POV, which is as worthless as a Palestinians promises
Click to expand...


We have had a lot of whiners whining Jew hatred when they can not argue a point with facts, however you appear to be outdoing all others by imploring it constantly.

Phoenall, can you explain to me how hatred would affect the veracity of what a poster is posting? Or are you going lead and join the chorus of whiners on this board?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this case.
> 
> 
> WTF does that have to do with the Israeli's treating the Palestinian's, like the Nazis treated the jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just your ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED POV, which is as worthless as a Palestinians promises
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have had a lot of whiners whining Jew hatred when they can not argue a point with facts, however you appear to be outdoing all others by imploring it constantly.
> 
> Phoenall, can you explain to me how hatred would affect the veracity of what a poster is posting? Or are you going lead and join the chorus of whiners on this board?
Click to expand...




 The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just your ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED POV, which is as worthless as a Palestinians promises
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have had a lot of whiners whining Jew hatred when they can not argue a point with facts, however you appear to be outdoing all others by imploring it constantly.
> 
> Phoenall, can you explain to me how hatred would affect the veracity of what a poster is posting? Or are you going lead and join the chorus of whiners on this board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE
Click to expand...


You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?

What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.

Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he said is the kind of shit I would expect from Sherri.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not shit!  Because if it was shit, you'd be able to successfully argue against each point. Instead, you can't even bring yourself to address any of the points I made.
> 
> All you can muster is personal attacks, because the shit I laid down, was good shit!
Click to expand...


I DID argue against each point. Not only did I argue them but i dismantled them. Did you forget already??

And you DID compare the IDF using tear gas to Jews being gassed to death. 
Go back to my post


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question?
Click to expand...


I said 'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death. You posted a video of the IDF using tear gas as a riot dispersal means followed by the words: you were saying?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have had a lot of whiners whining Jew hatred when they can not argue a point with facts, however you appear to be outdoing all others by imploring it constantly.
> 
> Phoenall, can you explain to me how hatred would affect the veracity of what a poster is posting? Or are you going lead and join the chorus of whiners on this board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
Click to expand...


Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis. 
In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.


----------



## SAYIT

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
> You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis.
> In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.
Click to expand...


Ya know, when I learned Pbel actually is the mentally challenged fellow he seems to be I stopped picking on him. It's kinda like beating a dead camel.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
> You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis.
> In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.
Click to expand...


I can honestly say that you might be the dumbest Zionist here...Your ability to solve problems is zero...You have never posted an original thought that adds to our knowledge...If you think I'm wrong then re-post something original besides your whining.


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
> You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis.
> In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know, when I learned Pbel actually is the mentally challenged fellow he seems to be I stopped picking on him. It's kinda like beating a dead camel.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Sniffer in my Zio-Nazi Hell in E TU TU Toy...We've been battling for years, and of course as you well know, I like punching you in the nose, because even when I miss, I always come close...

But at least you are a lot more intelligent than the rest of your Bozo squad...

Lets spar 'oL Sniff with your favorite subject: Joo Hate?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
> You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis.
> In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can honestly say that you might be the dumbest Zionist here...Your ability to solve problems is zero...You have never posted an original thought that adds to our knowledge...If you think I'm wrong then re-post something original besides your whining.
Click to expand...


Interesting, you once again accused me of what you are guilty of

You know very well that what you said about me is not true and that what I said about you is 100% true Pbel. 
You're posting in a forum where both of is are well known, so who are you trying to fool exactly, stupid Nazi?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
> You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis.
> In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, when I learned Pbel actually is the mentally challenged fellow he seems to be I stopped picking on him. It's kinda like beating a dead camel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the Sniffer in my Zio-Nazi Hell in E TU TU Toy...We've been battling for years, and of course as you well know, I like punching you in the nose, because even when I miss, I always come close...
> 
> But at least you are a lot more intelligent than the rest of your Bozo squad...
> 
> Lets spar 'oL Sniff with your favorite subject: Joo Hate?
Click to expand...


But stupid, you are in no position to decide who is stupid and who is not. Stick to writing your Nazi poems that no one cares about, stupid Nazi


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please Pbel, if anyone here is a whiner, it's you stupid.
> You're always complaining about posts of the pro Israelis.
> In fact, I cant remember the last time you posted something relevant to the topic. Stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can honestly say that you might be the dumbest Zionist here...Your ability to solve problems is zero...You have never posted an original thought that adds to our knowledge...If you think I'm wrong then re-post something original besides your whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, you once again accused me of what you are guilty of
> 
> You know very well that what you said about me is not true and that what I said about you is 100% true Pbel.
> You're posting in a forum where both of is are well known, so who are you trying to fool exactly, stupid Nazi?
Click to expand...


A little weiner...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have had a lot of whiners whining Jew hatred when they can not argue a point with facts, however you appear to be outdoing all others by imploring it constantly.
> 
> Phoenall, can you explain to me how hatred would affect the veracity of what a poster is posting? Or are you going lead and join the chorus of whiners on this board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
Click to expand...





 Every single one of your links is traced back to right wing or pro islam hate sites. You provide one that isn't

 I see the truth so I will tell the likes of you that you are wrong and that it is you consumed by your hatred.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just compare Jews being gassed to death to Israel firing tear gas as a riot dispersal means???
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said 'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death. You posted a video of the IDF using tear gas as a riot dispersal means followed by the words: you were saying?
Click to expand...




 True and when pulled up short over the comparison denied that this was the case


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence freely available shows that Israel is working within the law and the Geneva conventions. Your hatred for the Jews blinds you to the facts and you post from right wing hate sites about what the Jews are alleged to have done. No actual concrete evidence is produced just some "Palestinian official" who is never named has stated that Israel did this. Even when the evidence is produced that destroys the words of the "Palestinian official" you are so consumed with your hate you repeat the LIES. Your whole life revolves around demonising the JEWS no matter what they do or were they live. You do the Palestinian cause no good and many people look at the truth and see that it is not Israel that is treating the Palestinians like the NAZIS treated them but the other way round. Evidence of this is writ large and loud in their charter that states NO JEWS WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of your links is traced back to right wing or pro islam hate sites. You provide one that isn't
> 
> I see the truth so I will tell the likes of you that you are wrong and that it is you consumed by your hatred.
Click to expand...


Well re-post just one to prove your point instead of lying.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one sick wacko...There are over 3,000 posts on this thread, can you post one hate site that I posted? On the second point, can you re-post that I said that?
> 
> What you are is a whining liar who answers everyone posts with your hatred of Christians and Muslims and will never see the light of truth that blinds you.
> 
> Get a life and stop living on hate like its fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of your links is traced back to right wing or pro islam hate sites. You provide one that isn't
> 
> I see the truth so I will tell the likes of you that you are wrong and that it is you consumed by your hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well re-post just one to prove your point instead of lying.
Click to expand...





 THIS ONE for starters written for AP by a Palestinian Journo who is very anti Israeli

http://news.yahoo.com/abbas-says-won-39-t-concessions-jerusalem-155332465.html

 Just some of her anti Israeli tripe

Dalia Nammari | Author's Page | THE DAILY STAR


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of your links is traced back to right wing or pro islam hate sites. You provide one that isn't
> 
> I see the truth so I will tell the likes of you that you are wrong and that it is you consumed by your hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well re-post just one to prove your point instead of lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE for starters written for AP by a Palestinian Journo who is very anti Israeli
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/abbas-says-won-39-t-concessions-jerusalem-155332465.html
> 
> Just some of her anti Israeli tripe
> 
> Dalia Nammari | Author's Page | THE DAILY STAR
Click to expand...


So you think Yahoo News one of the free worlds unbiased news sources a  hate site...Not only are you stupid but obviously demented. Show the actual post or another, Sicko.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> I said 'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death. You posted a video of the IDF using tear gas as a riot dispersal means followed by the words: you were saying?


That's right and it wasn't a comparison.

I gave you an example of the IDF using gas.

You're the one who's trying to interject something that happened a half-century ago.

Don't blame _me,_ for the shit _you_ do.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well re-post just one to prove your point instead of lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE for starters written for AP by a Palestinian Journo who is very anti Israeli
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/abbas-says-won-39-t-concessions-jerusalem-155332465.html
> 
> Just some of her anti Israeli tripe
> 
> Dalia Nammari | Author's Page | THE DAILY STAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Yahoo News one of the free worlds unbiased news sources a  hate site...Not only are you stupid but obviously demented. Show the actual post or another, Sicko.
Click to expand...





 The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is. 
 How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said 'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death. You posted a video of the IDF using tear gas as a riot dispersal means followed by the words: you were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> That's right and it wasn't a comparison.
> 
> I gave you an example of the IDF using gas.
> 
> You're the one who's trying to interject something that happened a half-century ago.
> 
> Don't blame _me,_ for the shit _you_ do.
Click to expand...





 Try again the remit was   'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death' and you posted a video as your example of Israelis gassing people to death.  It was an attempt at pretending that the Israelis were gassing people to death that failed when you were pulled up short on it.

 By the way there was no indication in the video that the IDF were even involved, take another look and give me the time at the bottom were we see the IDF firing the tear gas ?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS ONE for starters written for AP by a Palestinian Journo who is very anti Israeli
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/abbas-says-won-39-t-concessions-jerusalem-155332465.html
> 
> Just some of her anti Israeli tripe
> 
> Dalia Nammari | Author's Page | THE DAILY STAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Yahoo News one of the free worlds unbiased news sources a  hate site...Not only are you stupid but obviously demented. Show the actual post or another, Sicko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
Click to expand...


Man, you are one sick dummy...The AP is known world wide for its integrity, your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Yahoo News one of the free worlds unbiased news sources a  hate site...Not only are you stupid but obviously demented. Show the actual post or another, Sicko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
Click to expand...


Don't make me laugh.
What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?


----------



## RoccoR

Billo_Really,  _et al,_

Thanks for the clarification.



Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said 'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death. You posted a video of the IDF using tear gas as a riot dispersal means followed by the words: you were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> That's right and it wasn't a comparison.
> 
> I gave you an example of the IDF using gas.
> 
> You're the one who's trying to interject something that happened a half-century ago.
> 
> Don't blame _me,_ for the shit _you_ do.
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

As I read the exchange, I too, was a bit confused as to where your were going with this "Tear Gas" _(non-lethal chemical agent)_ thing; and the "NAZI" connection.

So, we are agreed, that there is no comparison between the Israeli use of non-lethal chemical agents and the highly lethal use of toxic NAZI chemical weapons.

*(TRIVIA)*

There are three (3) agents called "Tear Gas" that Law Enforcement uses:

OC or "oleoresin capsicum" --- (AKA:  Pepper Spray)
CS or "chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile"
CN or "chloroacetophenone"
None of these (OC/CN/CS) are actually a "gas" but rather a "crystalline vapor."

Cyclon B _(Hydrocyanic acid or HCN or hydrogen cyanide variant)_, used by the NAZI's in WWII,  was an "insecticide" or "pesticide."  It was actually more lethal to humans than the pets it was meant to control; it destroys Hemoglobin _(the molecule in red blood cells or Hb)_ by arresting the Electron Transport System for Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) Synthesis critical to aerobic organisms. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
Click to expand...


Hello Come in world? This is Phoenall the wacky paranoid zionut who sees joo hate in every crevice...Let it be known, dear world, henceforth my opinions have more merit than the world renowned AP organization....

Please come to my group meeting at the nuthouse and I'll explain to you why...


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said 'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death. You posted a video of the IDF using tear gas as a riot dispersal means followed by the words: you were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> That's right and it wasn't a comparison.
> 
> I gave you an example of the IDF using gas.
> 
> You're the one who's trying to interject something that happened a half-century ago.
> 
> Don't blame _me,_ for the shit _you_ do.
Click to expand...


How stupid can one person be???? 
Ok, lets review this one more time.

After referring to Israelis as Nazis, one of the comments I made was:

Let me know when Israel gasses tens of thousands of Palestinians.
You responded DIRECTLY to that comment by posting a video of IDF soldiers using tear gas as a riot dispersal means, followed by the question: you were saying??

Obviously, since I called you out on that comment, you are embarrassed by your display of stupidity, and in a desperate attempt to cover it up, you are denying the comparison, even though it's there for everyone to see.

Epic fail. But then again, your whole comparing Israelis to Nazis was an epic fail.

Then you have the nerve to criticize me for bringing up something that happened half a century ago when it was you that brought up Nazis


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Come in world? This is Phoenall the wacky paranoid zionut who sees joo hate in every crevice...Let it be known, dear world, henceforth by opinions have more merit than the world renowned AP organization....
> 
> Please come to my group meeting at the nuthouse and I'll explain to you why...
Click to expand...


I was addressing your comment about Associated Press.


----------



## toastman

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
Click to expand...


Haha 

Pbel is a hoot isnt he?


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Come in world? This is Phoenall the wacky paranoid zionut who sees joo hate in every crevice...Let it be known, dear world, henceforth by opinions have more merit than the world renowned AP organization....
> 
> Please come to my group meeting at the nuthouse and I'll explain to you why...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was addressing your comment about Associated Press.
Click to expand...


So dumbnall accuses a Palestinian reporter of the AP and submits a photo as proof of AP's bias with a photo authored by a seemingly Jewish sounding name.

Go to his nuthouse meeting...It might help you too.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Come in world? This is Phoenall the wacky paranoid zionut who sees joo hate in every crevice...Let it be known, dear world, henceforth by opinions have more merit than the world renowned AP organization....
> 
> Please come to my group meeting at the nuthouse and I'll explain to you why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was addressing your comment about Associated Press.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumbnall accuses a Palestinian reporter of the AP and submits a photo as proof of AP's bias with a photo authored by a seemingly Jewish sounding name.
> 
> Go to his nuthouse meeting...It might help you too.
Click to expand...


He is perfectly able to back up his comments and whatever you are talking about is between you and him.

However I was addressing yours about Associated Press being non-biased.

Tuvia Grossman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Yahoo News one of the free worlds unbiased news sources a  hate site...Not only are you stupid but obviously demented. Show the actual post or another, Sicko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...The AP is known world wide for its integrity, your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
Click to expand...





 I did the research on your first link to this thread and find that it came to Yahoo via AP who got it from a pro Palestinian Journo. Can you deny this is the case.  By the way he is a she and you would know that if you followed the links I provided, but you prefer to just jump in with both feet.

 It seems that you don't like to be proven wrong on your sources of information, or when you are actually LYING about the situation in the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
Click to expand...




 Yes another example of pallywood productions were AP used the word of a Palestinian as fact and had to post a retraction and apology.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Come in world? This is Phoenall the wacky paranoid zionut who sees joo hate in every crevice...Let it be known, dear world, henceforth my opinions have more merit than the world renowned AP organization....
> 
> Please come to my group meeting at the nuthouse and I'll explain to you why...
Click to expand...




 That's right use the rules out of your neo Marxist book of disinformation and attack the messenger and not the message. You show yourself to be incapable of acting in an intelligent and adult manner when you rant like a spoilt 11 year old brat who cant get his own way.


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes another example of pallywood productions were AP used the word of a Palestinian as fact and had to post a retraction and apology.
Click to expand...


I read the article about Tuvia Grossman on Wimipedia, and after his father wrote a letter correcting the NY Times about how that man was his son and not a Palestinian, other Arab medias used the picture with the same original title.
Just goes to show you how they beed to lie in order to keep the image of the Palestinian as the perpetual victim


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Come in world? This is Phoenall the wacky paranoid zionut who sees joo hate in every crevice...Let it be known, dear world, henceforth by opinions have more merit than the world renowned AP organization....
> 
> Please come to my group meeting at the nuthouse and I'll explain to you why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was addressing your comment about Associated Press.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumbnall accuses a Palestinian reporter of the AP and submits a photo as proof of AP's bias with a photo authored by a seemingly Jewish sounding name.
> 
> Go to his nuthouse meeting...It might help you too.
Click to expand...





 You cant even get that right Tuvia Grossman is the name of the injured person beaten by Palestinians in Jerusalem. He is from America and went to Jerusalem as something he wanted to do before he died.

 AP were found to be biased and deliberately lying in this case and blamed their "Palestinian source" for the mix up.

 You lose again, but keep digging and soon you will be in South Africa.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

toastman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes another example of pallywood productions were AP used the word of a Palestinian as fact and had to post a retraction and apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the article about Tuvia Grossman on Wimipedia, and after his father wrote a letter correcting the NY Times about how that man was his son and not a Palestinian, other Arab medias used the picture with the same original title.
> Just goes to show you how they beed to lie in order to keep the image of the Palestinian as the perpetual victim
Click to expand...


Oh yes, a common trick.  
Subscribe to Media Watchdog | Coverage of Israel | Anti-Israel Bias | Everything You Need to Know*|*HonestReporting


----------



## montelatici

_Just goes to show you how they beed to lie in order to keep the image of the Palestinian as the perpetual victim_

Now that's funny coming from where it comes from.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> _Just goes to show you how they beed to lie in order to keep the image of the Palestinian as the perpetual victim_
> 
> Now that's funny coming from where it comes from.






 Why it is a proven fact, they even keep the same families in the same barbed wire enclosures that went there in 1948 at the request of the arab armies.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> _Just goes to show you how they beed to lie in order to keep the image of the Palestinian as the perpetual victim_
> 
> Now that's funny coming from where it comes from.



I know what you're saying, but why don't you elaborate on your comment for those who might not.


----------



## aris2chat

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...*The AP is known world wide for its integrity,* your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't make me laugh.
> What, like this photo by the Associated Press of Tuvia Grossman?
Click to expand...


problem was, it was a jew bleeding from a palestinian attack.  That is an old misinformation caption.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The report was written by a palestinian reporter who is very biased. it was only syndicated by AP to Yahoo and others.  So this stands as an example of you not looking at the source of your links to see what their ulterior motive is.
> How many times do we see the words " from a Palestinian source" when anti Israeli links are posted. This discredits the source straight away after the pallywood exposes in recent years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...The AP is known world wide for its integrity, your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did the research on your first link to this thread and find that it came to Yahoo via AP who got it from a pro Palestinian Journo. Can you deny this is the case.  By the way he is a she and you would know that if you followed the links I provided, but you prefer to just jump in with both feet.
> 
> It seems that you don't like to be proven wrong on your sources of information, or when you are actually LYING about the situation in the M.E.
Click to expand...


Well prove me wrong. Show some evidence that the AP is biased  in general and in favor of  the Palestinians...Its pretty clear that calling Yahoo a hate site is making your accusations foolish.


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...The AP is known world wide for its integrity, your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did the research on your first link to this thread and find that it came to Yahoo via AP who got it from a pro Palestinian Journo. Can you deny this is the case.  By the way he is a she and you would know that if you followed the links I provided, but you prefer to just jump in with both feet.
> 
> It seems that you don't like to be proven wrong on your sources of information, or when you are actually LYING about the situation in the M.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well prove me wrong. Show some evidence that the AP is biased  in general and in favor of  the Palestinians...Its pretty clear that calling Yahoo a hate site is making your accusations foolish.
Click to expand...


AP is not a media service, it is freelance authors using a common wire service to disseminate their stories.  New services choose to pick up particular stories and publish them.

AP is not bias, but writers that use the AP can be very bias.  They want their story to sell and if they can make it the most sensational or have the most "blood", it will be picked up by more news services.


----------



## pbel

aris2chat said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did the research on your first link to this thread and find that it came to Yahoo via AP who got it from a pro Palestinian Journo. Can you deny this is the case.  By the way he is a she and you would know that if you followed the links I provided, but you prefer to just jump in with both feet.
> 
> It seems that you don't like to be proven wrong on your sources of information, or when you are actually LYING about the situation in the M.E.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well prove me wrong. Show some evidence that the AP is biased  in general and in favor of  the Palestinians...Its pretty clear that calling Yahoo a hate site is making your accusations foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AP is not a media service, it is freelance authors using a common wire service to disseminate their stories.  New services choose to pick up particular stories and publish them.
> 
> AP is not bias, but writers that use the AP can be very bias.  They want their story to sell and if they can make it the most sensational or have the most "blood", it will be picked up by more news services.
Click to expand...


Why throw out foolish possibilities...I'm sure that AP has Editors to push for publishing the Truth...The Foolish Pro-Zionuts use Anti-Semitism ad nauseam when they can not win an argument on its merits, like a trump card and its disgusting....


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Some AP controversies here  2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Sweet_Caroline said:


> Some AP controversies here  2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And also here
The PJ Tatler » Associated Press releases staged fauxtographs from Lebanon

And more than likely more on the internet but I don't have the time to post them here.

So anyone who thinks AP is squeaky-clean is mistaken.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are one sick dummy...The AP is known world wide for its integrity, your bias and hate is disgusting in accusing any reporter as being biased because he has an Muslim sounding name...Your hate is all consuming and it will destroy you and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did the research on your first link to this thread and find that it came to Yahoo via AP who got it from a pro Palestinian Journo. Can you deny this is the case.  By the way he is a she and you would know that if you followed the links I provided, but you prefer to just jump in with both feet.
> 
> It seems that you don't like to be proven wrong on your sources of information, or when you are actually LYING about the situation in the M.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well prove me wrong. Show some evidence that the AP is biased  in general and in favor of  the Palestinians...Its pretty clear that calling Yahoo a hate site is making your accusations foolish.
Click to expand...



 I am not saying that Yahoo is a hate site, I am saying the source for their material comes from a hateful Palestinian journalist.

 The evidence has been produced when it blindly took the word of a "Palestinian source" that the picture was that of an Israeli policeman in the act of battering an already bloodied Palestinian. When a little bit of research would have shown that the picture was actually an American tourist that had been beaten by a GANG of Palestinians and the officer was chasing them away.

 It shows an unhealthy bias against Israel and the Jews and cost AP quiet a lot of money


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well prove me wrong. Show some evidence that the AP is biased  in general and in favor of  the Palestinians...Its pretty clear that calling Yahoo a hate site is making your accusations foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP is not a media service, it is freelance authors using a common wire service to disseminate their stories.  New services choose to pick up particular stories and publish them.
> 
> AP is not bias, but writers that use the AP can be very bias.  They want their story to sell and if they can make it the most sensational or have the most "blood", it will be picked up by more news services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why throw out foolish possibilities...I'm sure that AP has Editors to push for publishing the Truth...The Foolish Pro-Zionuts use Anti-Semitism ad nauseam when they can not win an argument on its merits, like a trump card and its disgusting....
Click to expand...




You can tell when one of the pro Palestinians is losing the argument they resort to immature name calling and fabrications.    AP relies on their sources doing their own editing, just as haaretz does for its online section. They are not media presenters, just sources of news. So if a pro Palestinian source submits an editorial they will pass out to the media the editorial and charge a fee per copy based on circulation figures.

 It is disgusting how even when shown that their source for news about Israel is proven to be from a biased source the pro Palestinians still attack the Jews out of pure NAZI HATE.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> AP is not a media service, it is freelance authors using a common wire service to disseminate their stories.  New services choose to pick up particular stories and publish them.
> 
> AP is not bias, but writers that use the AP can be very bias.  They want their story to sell and if they can make it the most sensational or have the most "blood", it will be picked up by more news services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why throw out foolish possibilities...I'm sure that AP has Editors to push for publishing the Truth...The Foolish Pro-Zionuts use Anti-Semitism ad nauseam when they can not win an argument on its merits, like a trump card and its disgusting....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell when one of the pro Palestinians is losing the argument they resort to immature name calling and fabrications.    AP relies on their sources doing their own editing, just as haaretz does for its online section. They are not media presenters, just sources of news. So if a pro Palestinian source submits an editorial they will pass out to the media the editorial and charge a fee per copy based on circulation figures.
> 
> It is disgusting how even when shown that their source for news about Israel is proven to be from a biased source the pro Palestinians still attack the Jews out of pure NAZI HATE.
Click to expand...


The only name calling Nazi is you and your ilk, who whine Nazi Hate like Chicken Little.

The AP "As part of their cooperative agreement with The Associated Press, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. For example, on page two of every edition of The Washington Post, the newspaper's masthead includes the statement, "The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to use for re-publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and all local news of spontaneous origin published herein."

Associated Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The AP employs the "inverted pyramid formula" for writing that enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essential meaning and news information.

Stop your sick lying.


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> AP is not a media service, it is freelance authors using a common wire service to disseminate their stories.  New services choose to pick up particular stories and publish them.
> 
> AP is not bias, but writers that use the AP can be very bias.  They want their story to sell and if they can make it the most sensational or have the most "blood", it will be picked up by more news services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why throw out foolish possibilities...I'm sure that AP has Editors to push for publishing the Truth...The Foolish Pro-Zionuts use Anti-Semitism ad nauseam when they can not win an argument on its merits, like a trump card and its disgusting....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell when one of the pro Palestinians is losing the argument they resort to immature name calling and fabrications.    AP relies on their sources doing their own editing, just as haaretz does for its online section. They are not media presenters, just sources of news. So if a pro Palestinian source submits an editorial they will pass out to the media the editorial and charge a fee per copy based on circulation figures.
> 
> It is disgusting how even when shown that their source for news about Israel is proven to be from a biased source the pro Palestinians still attack the Jews out of pure NAZI HATE.
Click to expand...


Stupid Nazis like him will always be stupid Nazis


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why throw out foolish possibilities...I'm sure that AP has Editors to push for publishing the Truth...The Foolish Pro-Zionuts use Anti-Semitism ad nauseam when they can not win an argument on its merits, like a trump card and its disgusting....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell when one of the pro Palestinians is losing the argument they resort to immature name calling and fabrications.    AP relies on their sources doing their own editing, just as haaretz does for its online section. They are not media presenters, just sources of news. So if a pro Palestinian source submits an editorial they will pass out to the media the editorial and charge a fee per copy based on circulation figures.
> 
> It is disgusting how even when shown that their source for news about Israel is proven to be from a biased source the pro Palestinians still attack the Jews out of pure NAZI HATE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid Nazis like him will always be stupid Nazis
Click to expand...


Da little weiner chimes in with is intellectualism of "tupid Nazis dey evwy where...Where's Tattle Teller!


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Try again the remit was   'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death' and you posted a video as your example of Israelis gassing people to death.  It was an attempt at pretending that the Israelis were gassing people to death that failed when you were pulled up short on it.


That's what you're trying to spin it into.

I posted a video of some IDF prick shooting tear gas at an innocent civilian.





Phoenall said:


> By the way there was no indication in the video that the IDF were even involved, take another look and give me the time at the bottom were we see the IDF firing the tear gas ?


That's not the only video out there.

_They have priors!_


----------



## aris2chat

Take any news story with a dash of skepticism and a lot of information.  I get news from more than 300 sources during the day and I have to find a logical balance between stories.  I often have eye witnesses via twitter giving me play by plays of what is happening.  I weight what I receive with my own knowledge of the situation and of the people involved.
Obviously not every story will be accurate, news off the wire is in flux, just like it is on twitter.
I would never rely on only one new station or paper.  I want to hear every point of view, and make my own mind up.


----------



## pbel

aris2chat said:


> Take any news story with a dash of skepticism and a lot of information.  I get news from more than 300 sources during the day and I have to find a logical balance between stories.  I often have eye witnesses via twitter giving me play by plays of what is happening.  I weight what I receive with my own knowledge of the situation and of the people involved.
> Obviously not every story will be accurate, news off the wire is in flux, just like it is on twitter.
> I would never rely on only one new station or paper.  I want to hear every point of view, and make my own mind up.



We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take any news story with a dash of skepticism and a lot of information.  I get news from more than 300 sources during the day and I have to find a logical balance between stories.  I often have eye witnesses via twitter giving me play by plays of what is happening.  I weight what I receive with my own knowledge of the situation and of the people involved.
> Obviously not every story will be accurate, news off the wire is in flux, just like it is on twitter.
> I would never rely on only one new station or paper.  I want to hear every point of view, and make my own mind up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?
Click to expand...


It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.


----------



## pbel

aris2chat said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take any news story with a dash of skepticism and a lot of information.  I get news from more than 300 sources during the day and I have to find a logical balance between stories.  I often have eye witnesses via twitter giving me play by plays of what is happening.  I weight what I receive with my own knowledge of the situation and of the people involved.
> Obviously not every story will be accurate, news off the wire is in flux, just like it is on twitter.
> I would never rely on only one new station or paper.  I want to hear every point of view, and make my own mind up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.
Click to expand...


Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
Click to expand...


I think Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian with Egyptian roots, sums up the media pretty nicely.

Why the Media Doesn't Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians :: Middle East Forum


----------



## toastman

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian with Egyptian roots, sums up the media pretty nicely.
> 
> Why the Media Doesn't Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians :: Middle East Forum
Click to expand...


Great read Sally. Thanks for posting.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian with Egyptian roots, sums up the media pretty nicely.
> 
> Why the Media Doesn't Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians :: Middle East Forum
Click to expand...


As usual, off on a tangent...Stick to the AP story.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian with Egyptian roots, sums up the media pretty nicely.
> 
> Why the Media Doesn't Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians :: Middle East Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, off on a tangent...Stick to the AP story.
Click to expand...


Do you really believe everything that comes from the AP.  You must be very naive.  However, I do believe than when you find an AP story that is negative towarfd Israel, you lap it up and believe every word.


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
Click to expand...


I dealt with the Palestinians narrative for too long.  I wouldn't sell it or use it in my work on their behalf.  Eventually I could work for them or with them because of the lies.
I've seen and heard the Daily star and BBC perspective vs. the WSJ, the Post or the Sun.  From arabic radio to voice of american.  From China to West Africa.  Everyone has their own agenda.  I like to read them all.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian with Egyptian roots, sums up the media pretty nicely.
> 
> Why the Media Doesn't Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians :: Middle East Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, off on a tangent...Stick to the AP story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe everything that comes from the AP.  You must be very naive.  However, I do believe than when you find an AP story that is negative towarfd Israel, you lap it up and believe every word.
Click to expand...


My naiveté is shared by most of the known world that the AP is a *Very* reliable news source...


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again the remit was   'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death' and you posted a video as your example of Israelis gassing people to death.  It was an attempt at pretending that the Israelis were gassing people to death that failed when you were pulled up short on it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you're trying to spin it into.
> 
> I posted a video of some IDF prick shooting tear gas at an innocent civilian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way there was no indication in the video that the IDF were even involved, take another look and give me the time at the bottom were we see the IDF firing the tear gas ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the only video out there.
> 
> _They have priors!_
Click to expand...





 1) your video was in reply to the direct question     'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death'    thereby meaning you are comparing the gassing of people in German camps to the IDF firing tear gas to disperse a riot.

 2) every single video you present has no viable evidence of what you or the original poster claim it shows, in fact many have been shown to be from other parts of the world and not a Jew in sight.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why throw out foolish possibilities...I'm sure that AP has Editors to push for publishing the Truth...The Foolish Pro-Zionuts use Anti-Semitism ad nauseam when they can not win an argument on its merits, like a trump card and its disgusting....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell when one of the pro Palestinians is losing the argument they resort to immature name calling and fabrications.    AP relies on their sources doing their own editing, just as haaretz does for its online section. They are not media presenters, just sources of news. So if a pro Palestinian source submits an editorial they will pass out to the media the editorial and charge a fee per copy based on circulation figures.
> 
> It is disgusting how even when shown that their source for news about Israel is proven to be from a biased source the pro Palestinians still attack the Jews out of pure NAZI HATE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only name calling Nazi is you and your ilk, who whine Nazi Hate like Chicken Little.
> 
> The AP "As part of their cooperative agreement with The Associated Press, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. For example, on page two of every edition of The Washington Post, the newspaper's masthead includes the statement, "The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to use for re-publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and all local news of spontaneous origin published herein."
> 
> Associated Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The AP employs the "inverted pyramid formula" for writing that enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essential meaning and news information.
> 
> Stop your sick lying.
Click to expand...





 You don't even understand what you have copied over, it is a standard disclaimer that gives A.P. the right to sell the story to other news outlets.
  In this case it used a pro Palestinian journalist from Palestine as the source for the report, as is usual for wire services they only had a short period of time to get the report on the wire so did not do any in depth research and got bitten. Just as they did when they sent out the Grossman picture and report, that ended up costing them plenty of money.

 Next time do your own research if you don't want to look like a complete moron.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take any news story with a dash of skepticism and a lot of information.  I get news from more than 300 sources during the day and I have to find a logical balance between stories.  I often have eye witnesses via twitter giving me play by plays of what is happening.  I weight what I receive with my own knowledge of the situation and of the people involved.
> Obviously not every story will be accurate, news off the wire is in flux, just like it is on twitter.
> I would never rely on only one new station or paper.  I want to hear every point of view, and make my own mind up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?
Click to expand...





 If the original source or author has an agenda then the report will be heavily biased in that direction. You can say what you like the original author was a Palestinian journo with pro Palestinian views and is heavily biased in that direction.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about this story not journalism 101..Do you believe this story is biased and Jew Hate like Phoenall originally accused?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is has a perspective that is more favorable to the "suffering" palestinians, because that story will sell better.  If the palestinians are portrayed as the victim, Israel must then be cast as the antagonist or black hat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
Click to expand...





 All of it as it was written with that in mind...........She is hardly likely to report on the Palestinians attacking Israeli children with the intention of killing them now is she.
 1) she would not live past the next nightfall

 2) it would be against her POV


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be more specific, what part of that story implies that? You really sound like an apologist when you make general impressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Raymond Ibrahim, a Christian with Egyptian roots, sums up the media pretty nicely.
> 
> Why the Media Doesn't Cover Jihadist Attacks on Middle East Christians :: Middle East Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, off on a tangent...Stick to the AP story.
Click to expand...




 Its not of on a tangent at all as it shows the media bias and culpability they share


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, off on a tangent...Stick to the AP story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe everything that comes from the AP.  You must be very naive.  However, I do believe than when you find an AP story that is negative towarfd Israel, you lap it up and believe every word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My naiveté is shared by most of the known world that the AP is a *Very* reliable news source...
Click to expand...





 Actually it is not after the recent scandals involving the wire services and the media outlets taking the reports coming out of Israel/Palestine and the war areas in the M.E. at face value and not looking at them closely enough. Always read the byline that contains the authors details and then do a search on the author for more information.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell when one of the pro Palestinians is losing the argument they resort to immature name calling and fabrications.    AP relies on their sources doing their own editing, just as haaretz does for its online section. They are not media presenters, just sources of news. So if a pro Palestinian source submits an editorial they will pass out to the media the editorial and charge a fee per copy based on circulation figures.
> 
> It is disgusting how even when shown that their source for news about Israel is proven to be from a biased source the pro Palestinians still attack the Jews out of pure NAZI HATE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only name calling Nazi is you and your ilk, who whine Nazi Hate like Chicken Little.
> 
> The AP "As part of their cooperative agreement with The Associated Press, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. For example, on page two of every edition of The Washington Post, the newspaper's masthead includes the statement, "The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to use for re-publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and all local news of spontaneous origin published herein."
> 
> Associated Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The AP employs the "inverted pyramid formula" for writing that enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essential meaning and news information.
> 
> Stop your sick lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand what you have copied over, it is a standard disclaimer that gives A.P. the right to sell the story to other news outlets.
> In this case it used a pro Palestinian journalist from Palestine as the source for the report, as is usual for wire services they only had a short period of time to get the report on the wire so did not do any in depth research and got bitten. Just as they did when they sent out the Grossman picture and report, that ended up costing them plenty of money.
> 
> Next time do your own research if you don't want to look like a complete moron.
Click to expand...


Still braying like a mule crying about bias by anyone or anything that doesn't buy your  story of everyone hates Israelis who are Jews that criticizes them for their policies.

The bitter sick paranoid moron looks like you.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]
> The only name calling Nazi is you and your ilk, who whine Nazi Hate like Chicken Little.
> 
> The AP "As part of their cooperative agreement with The Associated Press, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. For example, on page two of every edition of The Washington Post, the newspaper's masthead includes the statement, "The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to use for re-publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and all local news of spontaneous origin published herein."
> 
> Associated Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The AP employs the "inverted pyramid formula" for writing that enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essential meaning and news information.
> 
> Stop your sick lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand what you have copied over, it is a standard disclaimer that gives A.P. the right to sell the story to other news outlets.
> In this case it used a pro Palestinian journalist from Palestine as the source for the report, as is usual for wire services they only had a short period of time to get the report on the wire so did not do any in depth research and got bitten. Just as they did when they sent out the Grossman picture and report, that ended up costing them plenty of money.
> 
> Next time do your own research if you don't want to look like a complete moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still braying like a mule crying about bias by anyone or anything that doesn't buy your  story of everyone hates Israelis who are Jews that criticizes them for their policies.
> 
> The bitter sick paranoid moron looks like you.
Click to expand...


Come on, Pbel, with all your constant braying against Israel, do you honestly believe that all the articles coming out are actually honest when it comes to Israel?  No one actually cares if there is criticism against any country when the criticism is called for, but with all these articles coming out against Israel and not against all the atrocities happening in the Muslim world, be it in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, tells you an awful lot.  As far as the AP is concerned, there are others who have something to say about their articles which have nothing to do with Israel but with other matters.

Associated Press caught 'restructuring' old EPA news to mislead readers; mainstream media blindly plays along

Associated Press removes Ukraine from dateline of Crimea stories | World news | theguardian.com

Sandy Hook Shocker: Associated Press stories & photos predate the massacre |


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand what you have copied over, it is a standard disclaimer that gives A.P. the right to sell the story to other news outlets.
> In this case it used a pro Palestinian journalist from Palestine as the source for the report, as is usual for wire services they only had a short period of time to get the report on the wire so did not do any in depth research and got bitten. Just as they did when they sent out the Grossman picture and report, that ended up costing them plenty of money.
> 
> Next time do your own research if you don't want to look like a complete moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still braying like a mule crying about bias by anyone or anything that doesn't buy your  story of everyone hates Israelis who are Jews that criticizes them for their policies.
> 
> The bitter sick paranoid moron looks like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, Pbel, with all your constant braying against Israel, do you honestly believe that all the articles coming out are actually honest when it comes to Israel?  No one actually cares if there is criticism against any country when the criticism is called for, but with all these articles coming out against Israel and not against all the atrocities happening in the Muslim world, be it in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, tells you an awful lot.  As far as the AP is concerned, there are others who have something to say about their articles which have nothing to do with Israel but with other matters.
> 
> Associated Press caught 'restructuring' old EPA news to mislead readers; mainstream media blindly plays along
> 
> Associated Press removes Ukraine from dateline of Crimea stories | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> Sandy Hook Shocker: Associated Press stories & photos predate the massacre |
Click to expand...


Every news organization makes mistakes now and then unintentionally, go back and try to correct the error, but don't tell me veracity is affected by bias....Lies can be traced!


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still braying like a mule crying about bias by anyone or anything that doesn't buy your  story of everyone hates Israelis who are Jews that criticizes them for their policies.
> 
> The bitter sick paranoid moron looks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Pbel, with all your constant braying against Israel, do you honestly believe that all the articles coming out are actually honest when it comes to Israel?  No one actually cares if there is criticism against any country when the criticism is called for, but with all these articles coming out against Israel and not against all the atrocities happening in the Muslim world, be it in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, tells you an awful lot.  As far as the AP is concerned, there are others who have something to say about their articles which have nothing to do with Israel but with other matters.
> 
> Associated Press caught 'restructuring' old EPA news to mislead readers; mainstream media blindly plays along
> 
> Associated Press removes Ukraine from dateline of Crimea stories | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> Sandy Hook Shocker: Associated Press stories & photos predate the massacre |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every news organization makes mistakes now and then unintentionally, go back and try to correct the error, but don't tell me veracity is affected by bias....Lies can be traced!
Click to expand...


It is quite obvious from your posts for years and years that you will believe any article that is biased against Israel.  How come, Pbel, you never concern yourself with any articles about other countries in the Middle East?  Surely, you must be aware of what is happening what with all the dead bodies lying around.  Maybe in some posters' minds the thought goes through -- no Israel to blame so who cares about all these innocent dead people.


----------



## aris2chat

I read a story and several points of view about the facts.  I read arab, palestinian, Israeli, eastern and western perspectives.  They are quite different.
Some articles calmly state the facts without blame.  Others make one side or the other look like heroes or demons.  The author puts emotions and their own point of view into their writing.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]
> The only name calling Nazi is you and your ilk, who whine Nazi Hate like Chicken Little.
> 
> The AP "As part of their cooperative agreement with The Associated Press, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. For example, on page two of every edition of The Washington Post, the newspaper's masthead includes the statement, "The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to use for re-publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and all local news of spontaneous origin published herein."
> 
> Associated Press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The AP employs the "inverted pyramid formula" for writing that enables the news outlets to edit a story to fit its available publication area without losing the story's essential meaning and news information.
> 
> Stop your sick lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand what you have copied over, it is a standard disclaimer that gives A.P. the right to sell the story to other news outlets.
> In this case it used a pro Palestinian journalist from Palestine as the source for the report, as is usual for wire services they only had a short period of time to get the report on the wire so did not do any in depth research and got bitten. Just as they did when they sent out the Grossman picture and report, that ended up costing them plenty of money.
> 
> Next time do your own research if you don't want to look like a complete moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still braying like a mule crying about bias by anyone or anything that doesn't buy your  story of everyone hates Israelis who are Jews that criticizes them for their policies.
> 
> The bitter sick paranoid moron looks like you.
Click to expand...




 Whats wrong cant win a single point in this debate so having to rely on personal insults to stop losing your cred. If you use a biased source then I will pick up on it and remind you that it shows your own bias for using it.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still braying like a mule crying about bias by anyone or anything that doesn't buy your  story of everyone hates Israelis who are Jews that criticizes them for their policies.
> 
> The bitter sick paranoid moron looks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Pbel, with all your constant braying against Israel, do you honestly believe that all the articles coming out are actually honest when it comes to Israel?  No one actually cares if there is criticism against any country when the criticism is called for, but with all these articles coming out against Israel and not against all the atrocities happening in the Muslim world, be it in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, tells you an awful lot.  As far as the AP is concerned, there are others who have something to say about their articles which have nothing to do with Israel but with other matters.
> 
> Associated Press caught 'restructuring' old EPA news to mislead readers; mainstream media blindly plays along
> 
> Associated Press removes Ukraine from dateline of Crimea stories | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> Sandy Hook Shocker: Associated Press stories & photos predate the massacre |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every news organization makes mistakes now and then unintentionally, go back and try to correct the error, but don't tell me veracity is affected by bias....Lies can be traced!
Click to expand...





 These were not mistakes but deliberate attempts at disinformation, as in the Grossman case. A.P. reported what their "Palestinian source" told them without hesitation. When it was announced that the report was a pack of LIES and was done to demonise Israel and the Jews.    A.P. at first ignored the calls for an announcement on why they did not research the story and make sure that it was true. It was only after threats of legal action were raised that A.P. apologised and agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the media outlets that had lost face and revenue by publishing the false story. This started a concerted research programme into wire services and fake stories, this threw up many instances of tampered photographs and devious behaviour by the wire services and their sources. This investigation is still on going  and has thrown up many more examples of media bias that originates from the likes of A.P.


----------



## montelatici

It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.


Israel's 7 million Jews has about 1.5 billion Arabs surrounded and scared shitless. Just as it should be.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.



Obviously you have little or no knowledge about the Middle East..

Israel is surrounded by countries that they cannot cross into. And No one is brainwashed to believe that Israel is a poor lite country, but you are brainwashed to say such things. But yes, they are under threat from Arab terror, but you refuse to believe this.

Your post could not be further than the truth


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's 7 million Jews has about 1.5 billion Arabs surrounded and scared shitless. Just as it should be.
Click to expand...


Y'all better start exporting West Virgini built outhouses and clean up! 1.5 billion Muslims only 400 million Arabs. Still a lot!


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's 7 million Jews has about 1.5 billion Arabs surrounded and scared shitless. Just as it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all better start exporting West Virgini built outhouses and clean up! 1.5 billion Muslims only 400 million Arabs. Still a lot!
Click to expand...

Yowsuh!!


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's 7 million Jews has about 1.5 billion Arabs surrounded and scared shitless. Just as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all better start exporting West Virgini built outhouses and clean up! 1.5 billion Muslims only 400 million Arabs. Still a lot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh!!
Click to expand...

Not to worry.

There are far, far, far, farrrrrrrrrr fewer than that, within driving-distance or marching-distance of the borders of Israel...

And Israel will knock anything out of the sky that threatens her from that attack-vector.

Those Muslims who are sufficiently close, have tried screwing around with the Israelis time and again and gotten their sorry asses kicked good and proper.

They won't be back in any strength, anytime soon, and most end-up eventually cooperating with the Israelis anyway.

As for the rest of those 1.x billion Muslims, most of 'em live too far away, and care far too little about the mad-dog Palestinians, to risk war over such under-performers and rabid terrorists.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Pbel, with all your constant braying against Israel, do you honestly believe that all the articles coming out are actually honest when it comes to Israel?  No one actually cares if there is criticism against any country when the criticism is called for, but with all these articles coming out against Israel and not against all the atrocities happening in the Muslim world, be it in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa, tells you an awful lot.  As far as the AP is concerned, there are others who have something to say about their articles which have nothing to do with Israel but with other matters.
> 
> Associated Press caught 'restructuring' old EPA news to mislead readers; mainstream media blindly plays along
> 
> Associated Press removes Ukraine from dateline of Crimea stories | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> Sandy Hook Shocker: Associated Press stories & photos predate the massacre |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every news organization makes mistakes now and then unintentionally, go back and try to correct the error, but don't tell me veracity is affected by bias....Lies can be traced!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were not mistakes but deliberate attempts at disinformation, as in the Grossman case. A.P. reported what their "Palestinian source" told them without hesitation. When it was announced that the report was a pack of LIES and was done to demonise Israel and the Jews.    A.P. at first ignored the calls for an announcement on why they did not research the story and make sure that it was true. It was only after threats of legal action were raised that A.P. apologised and agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the media outlets that had lost face and revenue by publishing the false story. This started a concerted research programme into wire services and fake stories, this threw up many instances of tampered photographs and devious behaviour by the wire services and their sources. This investigation is still on going  and has thrown up many more examples of media bias that originates from the likes of A.P.
Click to expand...


You really are a colorful paranoid...Why in gawds name do you think that the AP purposely wanted to get Israel into a bad light? Seems to me that the Jew Hate card you use is indicative of your-own inner hate. 

Get help.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every news organization makes mistakes now and then unintentionally, go back and try to correct the error, but don't tell me veracity is affected by bias....Lies can be traced!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were not mistakes but deliberate attempts at disinformation, as in the Grossman case. A.P. reported what their "Palestinian source" told them without hesitation. When it was announced that the report was a pack of LIES and was done to demonise Israel and the Jews.    A.P. at first ignored the calls for an announcement on why they did not research the story and make sure that it was true. It was only after threats of legal action were raised that A.P. apologised and agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the media outlets that had lost face and revenue by publishing the false story. This started a concerted research programme into wire services and fake stories, this threw up many instances of tampered photographs and devious behaviour by the wire services and their sources. This investigation is still on going  and has thrown up many more examples of media bias that originates from the likes of A.P.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a colorful paranoid...Why in gawds name do you think that the AP purposely wanted to get Israel into a bad light? Seems to me that the Jew Hate card you use is indicative of your-own inner hate.
> 
> Get help.
Click to expand...




 ANTI SEMITISM, JEW HATRED, NAZI TENDENCIES   and it shows that your LIE about all the worlds media being controlled by the Jews is just that a LIE.

 Why manipulate pictures of Beirut and pass them of as gaza, why accept a Palestinians word on an incident when you know it is untruthful. Why print such BARE FACED LIES in the first place knowing that they will harm your circulation figures. 

Even when faced with incontrovertible evidence you still defend ISLAMONAZI ANTI SEMETIC JEW HATRED, shows that you are consumed with your personal hate for the Jewish people. Time for you to see a psychologist to find out why you hate Jews so much


----------



## Kondor3

Doesn't matter what you say...

Pro-Muslim propagandists will always have a counterpoint, and juicy rationalization...

Even if they have to conjure one out of thin air...



Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> These were not mistakes but deliberate attempts at disinformation, as in the Grossman case. A.P. reported what their "Palestinian source" told them without hesitation. When it was announced that the report was a pack of LIES and was done to demonise Israel and the Jews.    A.P. at first ignored the calls for an announcement on why they did not research the story and make sure that it was true. It was only after threats of legal action were raised that A.P. apologised and agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the media outlets that had lost face and revenue by publishing the false story. This started a concerted research programme into wire services and fake stories, this threw up many instances of tampered photographs and devious behaviour by the wire services and their sources. This investigation is still on going  and has thrown up many more examples of media bias that originates from the likes of A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a colorful paranoid...Why in gawds name do you think that the AP purposely wanted to get Israel into a bad light? Seems to me that the Jew Hate card you use is indicative of your-own inner hate.
> 
> Get help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANTI SEMITISM, JEW HATRED, NAZI TENDENCIES   and it shows that your LIE about all the worlds media being controlled by the Jews is just that a LIE.
> 
> Why manipulate pictures of Beirut and pass them of as gaza, why accept a Palestinians word on an incident when you know it is untruthful. Why print such BARE FACED LIES in the first place knowing that they will harm your circulation figures.
> 
> Even when faced with incontrovertible evidence you still defend ISLAMONAZI ANTI SEMETIC JEW HATRED, shows that you are consumed with your personal hate for the Jewish people. Time for you to see a psychologist to find out why you hate Jews so much
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> 1) your video was in reply to the direct question     'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death'


Yes.




Phoenall said:


> thereby meaning you are comparing the gassing of people in German camps to the IDF firing tear gas to disperse a riot.


Thereby "your" meaning, not mine.

That is not the reason I posted the video.

How many times have you (or another poster) responded to a post (with a reply), that had nothing to do with the post you were responding to?




Phoenall said:


> 2) every single video you present has no viable evidence of what you or the original poster claim it shows,


So when I post a video of the IDF shooting tear gas at someone, the IDF is not really shooting tear gas at someone?

Is that what you're saying?


And in this video, you're saying the IDF is not shooting at un-armed protestors?




You have definite mental issues!




Phoenall said:


> in fact many have been shown to be from other parts of the world and not a Jew in sight.


I'd like to see you prove that_ "...other parts of the world..."_ claim.

As far as_ "...not a jew in sight...", _that's because this has nothing to do with jews.

Is not about jews and has nothing to do with Judaism.

The only time jews are involved, is when you fuckers have no valid argument to present, which is all the time.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) your video was in reply to the direct question     'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death'
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> thereby meaning you are comparing the gassing of people in German camps to the IDF firing tear gas to disperse a riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thereby "your" meaning, not mine.
> 
> That is not the reason I posted the video.
> 
> How many times have you (or another poster) responded to a post (with a reply), that had nothing to do with the post you were responding to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) every single video you present has no viable evidence of what you or the original poster claim it shows,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when I post a video of the IDF shooting tear gas at someone, the IDF is not really shooting tear gas at someone?
> 
> Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> And in this video, you're saying the IDF is not shooting at un-armed protestors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have definite mental issues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact many have been shown to be from other parts of the world and not a Jew in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like to see you prove that_ "...other parts of the world..."_ claim.
> 
> As far as_ "...not a jew in sight...", _that's because this has nothing to do with jews.
> 
> Is not about jews and has nothing to do with Judaism.
> 
> The only time jews are involved, is when you fuckers have no valid argument to present, which is all the time.
Click to expand...





 So were are the Palestinians being gassed to death in your video

 No you used he comparison of Hitlers gas chambers to Israeli crowd riot control using non lethal tear gas.

 Personally never..........

 When you claim the Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death when they clearly are not then I pull you up short on it

 Did not see any bodies so either the Israelis were very poor shots, or the rounds were rubber bullets. Another method of riot control used by the worlds Police and Military. Would you expect the US military to allow you passage onto military property, or would you expect them to warn and then shoot non lethal weapons at you.

 Proven claims

 Yep because it shows your agenda that you are not concerned about atrocities in other parts of the M.E because you cant racially abuse and demonise the Jews.

 Just your opinion which is as worthless as an ashtray on a motorbike.


----------



## Kondor3

Your longer-tenured colleagues here have all seen this critter take-up a stance, argue it into the ground, and then run away when shellacked, or engage in automatic gainsay until its opponents grow weary of the exchange and give up on dealing with it. Such participation requires neither high-order intellectualism nor collegiality; just a fatal dose of intransigence and petulant persistence.

Such is the case here in arguing into the ground, the comparison between the Israelis using tear-gas, and the Nazi gassing of Jews in the 1940s. It will rely upon an irrational degree of hyper-literalism to deny making such comparisons, and automatic-gainsay you until you're blue in the face, just for the sake of argument, even though any warm body with the brains God gave an ant, can see for themselves just what was meant, in the early going.

And, frankly, either you're dealing with an Islamist/Palestinian propaganda shill, or you're dealing with someone who just likes to argue online, and who takes-up the 'con' position and resorts to an overabundance of foul language and abusive conduct towards colleagues, just to be abrasive and to stimulate argument...

It confessed its "I'm here for the argument" motives to me many months ago, and abrasive and argumentative behaviors and the responses those invoke seem to be what it thrives upon; something roughly akin to feeding a troll, or some similar descriptive verbiage.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.... an abrasive, argumentative propaganda shill... but that's pure speculation on my part.

I merely understand that reason and common sense and practicality and survival of the Israelis do not enter into the equation, when trying to deal with the critter, and you can't change that, no matter how hard and how long you try.

Its attempts to compare Israeli use of tear gas to the Nazis gassing the Jews has been well-noted and accepted by most folks around here; it's not fooling anybody; no point in beating that dead horse much longer, I expect. Just a thought.



Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) your video was in reply to the direct question     'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death'
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> Thereby "your" meaning, not mine.
> 
> That is not the reason I posted the video.
> 
> How many times have you (or another poster) responded to a post (with a reply), that had nothing to do with the post you were responding to?
> 
> 
> So when I post a video of the IDF shooting tear gas at someone, the IDF is not really shooting tear gas at someone?
> 
> Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> And in this video, you're saying the IDF is not shooting at un-armed protestors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have definite mental issues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact many have been shown to be from other parts of the world and not a Jew in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like to see you prove that_ "...other parts of the world..."_ claim.
> 
> As far as_ "...not a jew in sight...", _that's because this has nothing to do with jews.
> 
> Is not about jews and has nothing to do with Judaism.
> 
> The only time jews are involved, is when you fuckers have no valid argument to present, which is all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were are the Palestinians being gassed to death in your video
> 
> No you used he comparison of Hitlers gas chambers to Israeli crowd riot control using non lethal tear gas.
> 
> Personally never..........
> 
> When you claim the Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death when they clearly are not then I pull you up short on it
> 
> Did not see any bodies so either the Israelis were very poor shots, or the rounds were rubber bullets. Another method of riot control used by the worlds Police and Military. Would you expect the US military to allow you passage onto military property, or would you expect them to warn and then shoot non lethal weapons at you.
> 
> Proven claims
> 
> Yep because it shows your agenda that you are not concerned about atrocities in other parts of the M.E because you cant racially abuse and demonise the Jews.
> 
> Just your opinion which is as worthless as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) your video was in reply to the direct question     'let me know when Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death'
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> Thereby "your" meaning, not mine.
> 
> That is not the reason I posted the video.
> 
> How many times have you (or another poster) responded to a post (with a reply), that had nothing to do with the post you were responding to?
> 
> 
> So when I post a video of the IDF shooting tear gas at someone, the IDF is not really shooting tear gas at someone?
> 
> Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> And in this video, you're saying the IDF is not shooting at un-armed protestors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have definite mental issues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact many have been shown to be from other parts of the world and not a Jew in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd like to see you prove that_ "...other parts of the world..."_ claim.
> 
> As far as_ "...not a jew in sight...", _that's because this has nothing to do with jews.
> 
> Is not about jews and has nothing to do with Judaism.
> 
> The only time jews are involved, is when you fuckers have no valid argument to present, which is all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were are the Palestinians being gassed to death in your video
> 
> No you used he comparison of Hitlers gas chambers to Israeli crowd riot control using non lethal tear gas.
> 
> Personally never..........
> 
> When you claim the Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death when they clearly are not then I pull you up short on it
> 
> Did not see any bodies so either the Israelis were very poor shots, or the rounds were rubber bullets. Another method of riot control used by the worlds Police and Military. Would you expect the US military to allow you passage onto military property, or would you expect them to warn and then shoot non lethal weapons at you.
> 
> Proven claims
> 
> Yep because it shows your agenda that you are not concerned about atrocities in other parts of the M.E because you cant racially abuse and demonise the Jews.
> 
> Just your opinion which is as worthless as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Click to expand...


Be got caught making an extremely stupid comparison , and is too much of a coward to admit it. No lying can change what he posted.
He really DID compare Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas as a means of riot control. It's as clear as day. It's there for anyone to see.

Massive fail on Billo's part!!


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> States and identity are not solely tied to religion.
> 
> Otherwise Bangledesh would never have split off from Pakistan.
> 
> They have no more states than you have - after all, there are Jews all over the world if you look at it that way.
> 
> Both deserve *recognition of their identity, a right to self determination, and a right to exist* as a people.  It shouldn't that hard to acknowledge - the legitimacy of fundamental rights are not determined by how long they've been fought for but by what is right and just and human - what we all want for ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
Click to expand...


Israel is the only one who has ever been looking for a peace deal.  One that does allow access to their holy sites and does not put their neck on a chopping block though.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Arafat should have accepted the deal offered to him.
> 
> Either way, Abbas made it clear, he will not make peace unless the Palestinians have full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and Israel has made it clear in the past that Jerusalem will never be divided.
> 
> No peace deal is a WHOLE lot worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is the only one who has ever been looking for a peace deal.  One that does allow access to their holy sites and does not put their neck on a chopping block though.
Click to expand...


Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the only one who has ever been looking for a peace deal.  One that does allow access to their holy sites and does not put their neck on a chopping block though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.
Click to expand...


There is a huge difference between SA apartheid and the Israel situation.  It might be best if you educate yourself because it seems with every post you make you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the only one who has ever been looking for a peace deal.  One that does allow access to their holy sites and does not put their neck on a chopping block though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between SA apartheid and the Israel situation.  It might be best if you educate yourself because it seems with every post you make you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.
Click to expand...


Educate me, what is this huge difference?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between SA apartheid and the Israel situation.  It might be best if you educate yourself because it seems with every post you make you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate me, what is this huge difference?
Click to expand...


Educate yourself.  I am not here to start doing that.  If you are on a forum and make outrageous claims then you need to back those claims up.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not looking for a peace deal. They are looking for peace.
> 
> The peace process was designed to fail. It always has and always will. The Palestinians are uniting in their own quest for peace leaving behind the phony peace process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the only one who has ever been looking for a peace deal.  One that does allow access to their holy sites and does not put their neck on a chopping block though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.
Click to expand...


Jews were trying to make peace and encouraged the palestinians to stay and work with them since '47.  Every war and ceasefire was hoped that their would be a mutual peace agreement.
In south africa they were both citizens of the same state.  Palestinian don't want to be part of Israel or allow jews to be part of a palestine.
Israel is not keeping the refugees in the camps, their fellow arabs are so the UN will pay for their needs.


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between SA apartheid and the Israel situation.  It might be best if you educate yourself because it seems with every post you make you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate me, what is this huge difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate yourself.  I am not here to start doing that.  If you are on a forum and make outrageous claims then you need to back those claims up.
Click to expand...


As I thought, there is no tangible difference, as neutral observers have stated.


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge difference between SA apartheid and the Israel situation.  It might be best if you educate yourself because it seems with every post you make you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate me, what is this huge difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate yourself.  I am not here to start doing that.  If you are on a forum and make outrageous claims then you need to back those claims up.
Click to expand...


What are these "outrageous" claims?  I am just repeating what Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and even many fair minded Jews admit:

"Apartheid on Steroids

As a Jew who has been an ardent supporter of Israel since its independence, it pains me to record what I saw on a recent trip to the West Bank. But if the occupation continues as such, Israels legitimacy and future are at stake......"

Apartheid on Steroids | The Nation


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is the only one who has ever been looking for a peace deal.  One that does allow access to their holy sites and does not put their neck on a chopping block though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were trying to make peace and encouraged the palestinians to stay and work with them since '47.  Every war and ceasefire was hoped that their would be a mutual peace agreement.
> In south africa they were both citizens of the same state.  Palestinian don't want to be part of Israel or allow jews to be part of a palestine.
> Israel is not keeping the refugees in the camps, their fellow arabs are so the UN will pay for their needs.
Click to expand...


Really. It does not seem to jive with reality.  It seems it is part of the conditioning Americans receive.  This is closer to the truth as to what the motives of the Jews were:

" "It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe."

Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of "a body which would direct the Yishuvs war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible". This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the "Transfer Committee" which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas."

You can read more about and educate yourself.  

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's hilarious.  Reminds of the Afrikaaner propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were trying to make peace and encouraged the palestinians to stay and work with them since '47.  Every war and ceasefire was hoped that their would be a mutual peace agreement.
> In south africa they were both citizens of the same state.  Palestinian don't want to be part of Israel or allow jews to be part of a palestine.
> Israel is not keeping the refugees in the camps, their fellow arabs are so the UN will pay for their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really. It does not seem to jive with reality.  It seems it is part of the conditioning Americans receive.  This is closer to the truth as to what the motives of the Jews were:
> 
> " "It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe."
> 
> Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of "a body which would direct the Yishuvs war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible". This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the "Transfer Committee" which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas."
> 
> You can read more about and educate yourself.
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
Click to expand...


There are versions of what happened and then there are other versions about what happened.  Who to believe, oh who to believe?  Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell us wny these "Palestinians" were not clamoring for their own state when the Egyptians and Jordanians were ruling them.  I wonder since montelatici states " It seems it is part of the conditioning Americans receive," could she be posting from some Middle East country or is her heart back in one of them, such as Iran?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educate me, what is this huge difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate yourself.  I am not here to start doing that.  If you are on a forum and make outrageous claims then you need to back those claims up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are these "outrageous" claims?  I am just repeating what Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and even many fair minded Jews admit:
> 
> "Apartheid on Steroids
> 
> As a Jew who has been an ardent supporter of Israel since its independence, it pains me to record what I saw on a recent trip to the West Bank. But if the occupation continues as such, Israels legitimacy and future are at stake......"
> 
> Apartheid on Steroids | The Nation
Click to expand...


PA, and the UN, are responsible for the health, education, water and development of jobs.  Since Oslo, it is not in the hands of Israel.  Where Israel has build and developed industry, they have hired palestinians at Israeli wages.  Israel provides jobs in the construction industry as well.  Israelis doing more and paying more for palestinians to have jobs than the PA is.
Palestinians do not want to live in the settlements with jews, even if they could afford to do so.  They want to make the PA totally jew free, despite the fact that jews lived there before the partition, and war.  Jews were forced out by the Jordanians.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

LDM (Le Monde Diplomatique) is an "alternative view" out of Paris; or as some one is quite well known would say:



			
				Noam Chomsky said:
			
		

> Unique, invaluable, reliable, the English edition is wonderful news for those who hope to understand the world or change it for the better





montelatici said:


> You can read more about and educate yourself.
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


*(COMMENT)*

If you like controversial views, this is a very good resource.  I read it (the English Version).  But I can only take one article at a time before I'm frustrated at they assumption of their views.  Whether it educates you or indoctrinates you is dependent on how susceptible you are to anti-American perspectives.  Currently, they are tearing into the Obama Administration _(not that they don't deserve some criticism)_.  But they offer little in the way of solutions or approaches other than to, as it applies here, surrender to Hostile Palestinian demands; totally and unconditionally.

However, I will say again, if you are looking for alternative view, LMD is an excellent resource; just not my cup of tea.  I'm more the Kentucky Straight Bourbon man myself; known to have frequented Hayarkon Street bars in my younger days.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> LDM (Le Monde Diplomatique) is an "alternative view" out of Paris; or as some one is quite well known would say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noam Chomsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unique, invaluable, reliable, the English edition is wonderful news for those who hope to understand the world or change it for the better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can read more about and educate yourself.
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you like controversial views, this is a very good resource.  I read it (the English Version).  But I can only take one article at a time before I'm frustrated at they assumption of their views.  Whether it educates you or indoctrinates you is dependent on how susceptible you are to anti-American perspectives.  Currently, they are tearing into the Obama Administration _(not that they don't deserve some criticism)_.  But they offer little in the way of solutions or approaches other than to, as it applies here, surrender to Hostile Palestinian demands; totally and unconditionally.
> 
> However, I will say again, if you are looking for alternative view, LMD is an excellent resource; just not my cup of tea.  I'm more the Kentucky Straight Bourbon man myself; known to have frequented Hayarkon Street bars in my younger days.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


They are not views, they are facts.  They include documents that reveal what the motives were and what the Jews plans for the non-Jews were prior to the declaration of the Israeli state.  This is not Fox News, it is Le Monde, one of the world's must serious news organizations, considered the most even-handed politically in the world.

There is nothing anti-American (or anti-Israeli) about it.  It is just a presentation of facts that have been discovered through research within previously inaccessible archives.  And look buddy, I spent a tour as  an O-2 in Vietnam with the 196th Light Infantry, there is nothing anti-American about me.  I was also with Army Corps of Engineers in Jeddah for 2 years, that's where I met many Palestinians who had been expelled from Palestine who because of their education and command of English worked for us in clerical positions.  That's when my views became more neutral.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Educate yourself.  I am not here to start doing that.  If you are on a forum and make outrageous claims then you need to back those claims up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are these "outrageous" claims?  I am just repeating what Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and even many fair minded Jews admit:
> 
> "Apartheid on Steroids
> 
> As a Jew who has been an ardent supporter of Israel since its independence, it pains me to record what I saw on a recent trip to the West Bank. But if the occupation continues as such, Israels legitimacy and future are at stake......"
> 
> Apartheid on Steroids | The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA, and the UN, are responsible for the health, education, water and development of jobs.  Since Oslo, it is not in the hands of Israel.  Where Israel has build and developed industry, they have hired palestinians at Israeli wages.  Israel provides jobs in the construction industry as well.  Israelis doing more and paying more for palestinians to have jobs than the PA is.
> Palestinians do not want to live in the settlements with jews, even if they could afford to do so.  They want to make the PA totally jew free, despite the fact that jews lived there before the partition, and war.  Jews were forced out by the Jordanians.
Click to expand...


It must be heavenly for the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were trying to make peace and encouraged the palestinians to stay and work with them since '47.  Every war and ceasefire was hoped that their would be a mutual peace agreement.
> In south africa they were both citizens of the same state.  Palestinian don't want to be part of Israel or allow jews to be part of a palestine.
> Israel is not keeping the refugees in the camps, their fellow arabs are so the UN will pay for their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. It does not seem to jive with reality.  It seems it is part of the conditioning Americans receive.  This is closer to the truth as to what the motives of the Jews were:
> 
> " "It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe."
> 
> Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of "a body which would direct the Yishuvs war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible". This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the "Transfer Committee" which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas."
> 
> You can read more about and educate yourself.
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are versions of what happened and then there are other versions about what happened.  Who to believe, oh who to believe?  *Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell us wny these "Palestinians" were not clamoring for their own state when the Egyptians and Jordanians were ruling them.*  I wonder since montelatici states " It seems it is part of the conditioning Americans receive," could she be posting from some Middle East country or is her heart back in one of them, such as Iran?
Click to expand...


They were, it is just that it is not mentioned in Israel's propaganda sites.


----------



## montelatici

*Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell us wny these "Palestinians" were not clamoring for their own state when the Egyptians and Jordanians were ruling them. *

Palestinians have been asking for independence since Ottoman times and wanted independence under Egyptian and Jordanian rule.  You have been reading too much Israeli propaganda.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

First, I did not say anything about "you" - one way or the other.  From one RVN vet to another - glad you made it home! 



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> LDM (Le Monde Diplomatique) is an "alternative view" out of Paris; or as some one is quite well known would say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noam Chomsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Unique, invaluable, reliable, the English edition is wonderful news for those who hope to understand the world or change it for the better&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can read more about and educate yourself.
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you like controversial views, this is a very good resource.  I read it (the English Version).  But I can only take one article at a time before I'm frustrated at they assumption of their views.  Whether it educates you or indoctrinates you is dependent on how susceptible you are to anti-American perspectives.  Currently, they are tearing into the Obama Administration _(not that they don't deserve some criticism)_.  But they offer little in the way of solutions or approaches other than to, as it applies here, surrender to Hostile Palestinian demands; totally and unconditionally.
> 
> However, I will say again, if you are looking for alternative view, LMD is an excellent resource; just not my cup of tea.  I'm more the Kentucky Straight Bourbon man myself; known to have frequented Hayarkon Street bars in my younger days.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not views, they are facts.  They include documents that reveal what the motives were and what the Jews plans for the non-Jews were prior to the declaration of the Israeli state.  This is not Fox News, it is Le Monde, one of the world's must serious news organizations, considered the most even-handed politically in the world.
Click to expand...


*(OBSERVATION)*



EXCERPTS from:  About LMD --- Real journalism &#8212 said:


> "We offer a clear, *considered view* of the conflicting interests and complexities of a modern global world."
> 
> "We specialise in authoritative journalism whether it&#8217;s a *view* on Obama&#8217;s policy statements or on the unfolding dramas in Iran, Palestine or Pakistan."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Endorsement:  About LMD by New York Review of Books said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;LMD provides a cool, reasoned, *different view* of the world&#8217;s most pressing issues&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ About LMD
Click to expand...


I recommend that you don't quibble over words of assign any media as a "factual source."  They are all F-6 Sources.



montelatici said:


> There is nothing anti-American (or anti-Israeli) about it.  It is just a presentation of facts that have been discovered through research within previously inaccessible archives.  And look buddy, I spent a tour as  an O-2 in Vietnam with the 196th Light Infantry, there is nothing anti-American about me.  I was also with Army Corps of Engineers in Jeddah for 2 years, that's where I met many Palestinians who had been expelled from Palestine who because of their education and command of English worked for us in clerical positions.  That's when my views became more neutral.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't believe that I made any comment as to your loyalty or political persuasion, one way or the other. 

I've had close associations with Palestinians since 1978; in the capacity of legal travelers, DACs/LN Employees and NAF entities.  So I'm not unfamiliar with the hard luck stories they tell.  I've run across many career military and foreign service officers that have sympathies leaning in their direction.  Opinions what they are, we are allowed to differ.  You may have noticed that I make a distinction between Hostile Arab Palestinians and Arab Palestinians (non-Hostile).  That is an acquired (experiential) taste.  I don't consider anyone that supports the tenants of the HAMAS Covenant or the Palestinian National Charter as non-Hostile.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> First, I did not say anything about "you" - one way or the other.  From one RVN vet to another - glad you made it home!
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> LDM (Le Monde Diplomatique) is an "alternative view" out of Paris; or as some one is quite well known would say:
> 
> ​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you like controversial views, this is a very good resource.  I read it (the English Version).  But I can only take one article at a time before I'm frustrated at they assumption of their views.  Whether it educates you or indoctrinates you is dependent on how susceptible you are to anti-American perspectives.  Currently, they are tearing into the Obama Administration _(not that they don't deserve some criticism)_.  But they offer little in the way of solutions or approaches other than to, as it applies here, surrender to Hostile Palestinian demands; totally and unconditionally.
> 
> However, I will say again, if you are looking for alternative view, LMD is an excellent resource; just not my cup of tea.  I'm more the Kentucky Straight Bourbon man myself; known to have frequented Hayarkon Street bars in my younger days.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not views, they are facts.  They include documents that reveal what the motives were and what the Jews plans for the non-Jews were prior to the declaration of the Israeli state.  This is not Fox News, it is Le Monde, one of the world's must serious news organizations, considered the most even-handed politically in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTS from:  About LMD --- Real journalism  making sense of the world around us said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We offer a clear, *considered view* of the conflicting interests and complexities of a modern global world."
> 
> "We specialise in authoritative journalism whether its a *view* on Obamas policy statements or on the unfolding dramas in Iran, Palestine or Pakistan."
> 
> 
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ About LMD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recommend that you don't quibble over words of assign any media as a "factual source."  They are all F-6 Sources.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing anti-American (or anti-Israeli) about it.  It is just a presentation of facts that have been discovered through research within previously inaccessible archives.  And look buddy, I spent a tour as  an O-2 in Vietnam with the 196th Light Infantry, there is nothing anti-American about me.  I was also with Army Corps of Engineers in Jeddah for 2 years, that's where I met many Palestinians who had been expelled from Palestine who because of their education and command of English worked for us in clerical positions.  That's when my views became more neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that I made any comment as to your loyalty or political persuasion, one way or the other.
> 
> I've had close associations with Palestinians since 1978; in the capacity of legal travelers, DACs/LN Employees and NAF entities.  So I'm not unfamiliar with the hard luck stories they tell.  I've run across many career military and foreign service officers that have sympathies leaning in their direction.  Opinions what they are, we are allowed to differ.  You may have noticed that I make a distinction between Hostile Arab Palestinians and Arab Palestinians (non-Hostile).  That is an acquired (experiential) taste.  I don't consider anyone that supports the tenants of the HAMAS Covenant or the Palestinian National Charter as non-Hostile.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.  I suspect that you believe that the Jews had a right to expel the non-Jews they expelled and that the non-Jews should just accept their situation.  Don't you realize how silly that is.  The native Americans in South America are still attempting to regain their lands and status after over 500 years, and in some places like Bolivia, they have succeeded in gaining power.  What makes you think that the Palestinians will just go away?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> *Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell us wny these "Palestinians" were not clamoring for their own state when the Egyptians and Jordanians were ruling them. *
> 
> Palestinians have been asking for independence since Ottoman times and wanted independence under Egyptian and Jordanian rule.  You have been reading too much Israeli propaganda.



They wanted to be part of a greater arab state.  Most wanted a greater arab syrian state.  Palestinians was not what they considered themselves.


----------



## Kondor3

What makes Israel supporters believe that the Palestinians will just go away?

1. the Palestinians have never been a polity nor 'people' - rather, a diverse collection of migrants and tribals

2. they have no sense of unity other than that conjured by Arafat, et al, within living memory

3. their own ethnic brethren and co-religionists nearby have all but abandoned them

4. they are their own worst enemy - fighting amongst themselves - Fatah vs. Hamas

5. they are outgunned and outclassed and outmaneuvered at every turn - out of their depth

6. their quickly-shrinking collection of land-parcels are insufficient and not contiguous nor sustainable

The Palestinians are under-performers and cannot be compared to actual Peoples elsewhere.

A century from now, their descendants will be scattered amongst the neighboring Arab states and thriving and both the name 'Palestinian' and its meaning will have drifted out of the collective consciousness except for the history books.

It's over.


----------



## pbel

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> First, I did not say anything about "you" - one way or the other.  From one RVN vet to another - glad you made it home!
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not views, they are facts.  They include documents that reveal what the motives were and what the Jews plans for the non-Jews were prior to the declaration of the Israeli state.  This is not Fox News, it is Le Monde, one of the world's must serious news organizations, considered the most even-handed politically in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend that you don't quibble over words of assign any media as a "factual source."  They are all F-6 Sources.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing anti-American (or anti-Israeli) about it.  It is just a presentation of facts that have been discovered through research within previously inaccessible archives.  And look buddy, I spent a tour as  an O-2 in Vietnam with the 196th Light Infantry, there is nothing anti-American about me.  I was also with Army Corps of Engineers in Jeddah for 2 years, that's where I met many Palestinians who had been expelled from Palestine who because of their education and command of English worked for us in clerical positions.  That's when my views became more neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that I made any comment as to your loyalty or political persuasion, one way or the other.
> 
> I've had close associations with Palestinians since 1978; in the capacity of legal travelers, DACs/LN Employees and NAF entities.  So I'm not unfamiliar with the hard luck stories they tell.  I've run across many career military and foreign service officers that have sympathies leaning in their direction.  Opinions what they are, we are allowed to differ.  You may have noticed that I make a distinction between Hostile Arab Palestinians and Arab Palestinians (non-Hostile).  That is an acquired (experiential) taste.  I don't consider anyone that supports the tenants of the HAMAS Covenant or the Palestinian National Charter as non-Hostile.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.  I suspect that you believe that the Jews had a right to expel the non-Jews they expelled and that the non-Jews should just accept their situation.  Don't you realize how silly that is.  The native Americans in South America are still attempting to regain their lands and status after over 500 years, and in some places like Bolivia, they have succeeded in gaining power.  What makes you think that the Palestinians will just go away?
Click to expand...


I pretty much agree, the Palestinians and Arabs in ridding themselves of invaders for 1200 years or so in attrition war-fare...So far the Arabs have succeeded  in outlasting the Crusaders, Turks, Brits, and this war too will last unless the Israelis agree to a mutually beneficial Economic based peace that might revitalize the region.

I believe its Israel's only hope for acceptance and survival


----------



## montelatici

I have always supported a secular state with equality for Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine.  Unfortunately, the Jews want control of that state so it will never happen.


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> What makes Israel supporters believe that the Palestinians will just go away?
> 
> 1. the Palestinians have never been a polity nor 'people' - rather, a diverse collection of migrants and tribals
> 
> 2. they have no sense of unity other than that conjured by Arafat, et al, within living memory
> 
> 3. their own ethnic brethren and co-religionists nearby have all but abandoned them
> 
> 4. they are their own worst enemy - fighting amongst themselves - Fatah vs. Hamas
> 
> 5. they are outgunned and outclassed and outmaneuvered at every turn - out of their depth
> 
> 6. their quickly-shrinking collection of land-parcels are insufficient and not contiguous nor sustainable
> 
> The Palestinians are under-performers and cannot be compared to actual Peoples elsewhere.
> 
> A century from now, their descendants will be scattered amongst the neighboring Arab states and thriving and both the name 'Palestinian' and its meaning will have drifted out of the collective consciousness except for the history books.
> 
> It's over.


Yesterday afternoon I spent 3 hours with an Israeli from Jerusalem and the most striking remark he made was that "Palestinians are more hated by most other Arabs rather than non-Arabs".


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> I have always supported a secular state with equality for Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine.  Unfortunately, the Jews want control of that state so it will never happen.



jews want to protect their religious rights and heritage.  They want to have a state where they will no be perecuted.
Israeli christians and muslims have the same rights in Israel.  Palestinians have right from the PA.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

Let's shed a little light here.



montelatici said:


> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think I said that; or even implied that.   I have often said that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate grievances and claims.  It is the means by which they attempt to settle those grievances and claims that I have taken issue. 

This is the difference between peaceful means (example BDS) and hostile means (example terror tactics). 

The Jihadist and Fedayeen are hostile, and anyone that supports, encourages or facilitates them is culpable and criminal.

No Palestinian has any special exemption to participate in an armed struggle against the State of Israel. 



montelatici said:


> I suspect that you believe that the Jews had a right to expel the non-Jews they expelled and that the non-Jews should just accept their situation.  Don't you realize how silly that is.  The native Americans in South America are still attempting to regain their lands and status after over 500 years, and in some places like Bolivia, they have succeeded in gaining power.  What makes you think that the Palestinians will just go away?


*(COMMENT)*

I don't like to make comparisons between cultures.  In all of human history, you probably could not come up with a total of a 1000 years where the planet was at peace.  It is a rarity to find a period of time absent conflict somewhere.

If I'm discussing Palestine (whatever that is defined to be), then I tend to stick to what is applicable to that conflict.  I don't inject the cultural difficulties of a totally disconnected society.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> First, I did not say anything about "you" - one way or the other.  From one RVN vet to another - glad you made it home!
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend that you don't quibble over words of assign any media as a "factual source."  They are all F-6 Sources.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't believe that I made any comment as to your loyalty or political persuasion, one way or the other.
> 
> I've had close associations with Palestinians since 1978; in the capacity of legal travelers, DACs/LN Employees and NAF entities.  So I'm not unfamiliar with the hard luck stories they tell.  I've run across many career military and foreign service officers that have sympathies leaning in their direction.  Opinions what they are, we are allowed to differ.  You may have noticed that I make a distinction between Hostile Arab Palestinians and Arab Palestinians (non-Hostile).  That is an acquired (experiential) taste.  I don't consider anyone that supports the tenants of the HAMAS Covenant or the Palestinian National Charter as non-Hostile.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.  I suspect that you believe that the Jews had a right to expel the non-Jews they expelled and that the non-Jews should just accept their situation.  Don't you realize how silly that is.  The native Americans in South America are still attempting to regain their lands and status after over 500 years, and in some places like Bolivia, they have succeeded in gaining power.  What makes you think that the Palestinians will just go away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretty much agree, the Palestinians and Arabs in ridding themselves of invaders for 1200 years or so in attrition war-fare...So far the Arabs have succeeded  in outlasting the Crusaders, Turks, Brits, and this war too will last unless the Israelis agree to a mutually beneficial Economic based peace that might revitalize the region.
> 
> I believe its Israel's only hope for acceptance and survival
Click to expand...


Pbel, I'm very confused about your position. 
You say that Israel needs to, among other things, allow right of return.
But on the other hand, you say that if Israel doesn't allow right of return among the other demands, then it will be destroyed because of how Arabs outnumber Jews.
But the thing is, allowing right of return will make Jews a majority in their own country, and will lead to demographic suicide. Right of return will make Arabs out umber Jews by quite a lot.... But INSIDE Israel..
Do you understand where I'm going with this??


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> So were are the Palestinians being gassed to death in your video


You didn't see the video?



Phoenall said:


> No you used he comparison of Hitlers gas chambers to Israeli crowd riot control using non lethal tear gas.


No I didn't.  That's what you're trying to spin it into.

At least have the balls to take ownership over the things you say.



Phoenall said:


> Personally never..........


Never what?  Never make a lucid comment?




Phoenall said:


> When you claim the Israelis are gassing Palestinians to death when they clearly are not then I pull you up short on it


Where did I make that claim?  What post was it?




Phoenall said:


> Did not see any bodies so either the Israelis were very poor shots, or the rounds were rubber bullets. Another method of riot control used by the worlds Police and Military.


It wasn't a riot, yet they opened fire anyway.



Phoenall said:


> Would you expect the US military to allow you passage onto military property, or would you expect them to warn and then shoot non lethal weapons at you.


It wasn't military property, it was a public road.  A road that happens to be in the West Bank, which the IDF has no legal reason to be there.




Phoenall said:


> Proven claims


WTF are you talking about, dumbass?




Phoenall said:


> Yep because it shows your agenda that you are not concerned about atrocities in other parts of the M.E because you cant racially abuse and demonise the Jews.


You're not concerned with the atrocities in that video,



Phoenall said:


> Just your opinion which is as worthless as an ashtray on a motorbike.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Let's shed a little light here.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think I said that; or even implied that.   I have often said that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate grievances and claims.  It is the means by which they attempt to settle those grievances and claims that I have taken issue.
> 
> This is the difference between peaceful means (example BDS) and hostile means (example terror tactics).
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are hostile, and anyone that supports, encourages or facilitates them is culpable and criminal.
> 
> No Palestinian has any special exemption to participate in an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that you believe that the Jews had a right to expel the non-Jews they expelled and that the non-Jews should just accept their situation.  Don't you realize how silly that is.  The native Americans in South America are still attempting to regain their lands and status after over 500 years, and in some places like Bolivia, they have succeeded in gaining power.  What makes you think that the Palestinians will just go away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't like to make comparisons between cultures.  In all of human history, you probably could not come up with a total of a 1000 years where the planet was at peace.  It is a rarity to find a period of time absent conflict somewhere.
> 
> If I'm discussing Palestine (whatever that is defined to be), then I tend to stick to what is applicable to that conflict.  I don't inject the cultural difficulties of a totally disconnected society.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Yes, let's shed some light.



> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Let's shed a little light here.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think I said that; or even implied that.   I have often said that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate grievances and claims.  It is the means by which they attempt to settle those grievances and claims that I have taken issue.
> 
> This is the difference between peaceful means (example BDS) and hostile means (example terror tactics).
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are hostile, and anyone that supports, encourages or facilitates them is culpable and criminal.
> 
> No Palestinian has any special exemption to participate in an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't like to make comparisons between cultures.  In all of human history, you probably could not come up with a total of a 1000 years where the planet was at peace.  It is a rarity to find a period of time absent conflict somewhere.
> 
> If I'm discussing Palestine (whatever that is defined to be), then I tend to stick to what is applicable to that conflict.  I don't inject the cultural difficulties of a totally disconnected society.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and set up their own State in peace alongside that of Israel, back in 1948, never mind losing the various wars they provoked or started.

You just can't keep making piss-poor decisions like that, decade after decade, and expect to sustain your case, 66 years later.

Dumbasses... welcome to your consequences.

It's over.


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes Israel supporters believe that the Palestinians will just go away?
> 
> 1. the Palestinians have never been a polity nor 'people' - rather, a diverse collection of migrants and tribals
> 
> 2. they have no sense of unity other than that conjured by Arafat, et al, within living memory
> 
> 3. their own ethnic brethren and co-religionists nearby have all but abandoned them
> 
> 4. they are their own worst enemy - fighting amongst themselves - Fatah vs. Hamas
> 
> 5. they are outgunned and outclassed and outmaneuvered at every turn - out of their depth
> 
> 6. their quickly-shrinking collection of land-parcels are insufficient and not contiguous nor sustainable
> 
> The Palestinians are under-performers and cannot be compared to actual Peoples elsewhere.
> 
> A century from now, their descendants will be scattered amongst the neighboring Arab states and thriving and both the name 'Palestinian' and its meaning will have drifted out of the collective consciousness except for the history books.
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday afternoon I spent 3 hours with an Israeli from Jerusalem and the most striking remark he made was that "Palestinians are more hated by most other Arabs rather than non-Arabs".
Click to expand...

Not surprising.

These losers have been causing grief amongst their brother Muslims for decades.

The ones living closer-by have poured blood and treasure into the contest on their behalf on multimple occasions, and appear to have reached a state of Donor Exhaustion.

To the point where even the Egyptians and Jordanians are collaborating with Israel, to wall-off and isolate the mad-dog Palestinians, to prevent the spread of their particular strain of political rabies pestilence.

You know you're 'screwed' when your own co-religionists finally throw-up their hands and collaborate with former common enemies in order to blockade you.

Thus has the collective stupidity, intransigence and cowardice of the so-called Palestinian Cause brought them to their present sorry and hopeless state of affairs.

It's over.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.  I suspect that you believe that the Jews had a right to expel the non-Jews they expelled and that the non-Jews should just accept their situation.  Don't you realize how silly that is.  The native Americans in South America are still attempting to regain their lands and status after over 500 years, and in some places like Bolivia, they have succeeded in gaining power.  What makes you think that the Palestinians will just go away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much agree, the Palestinians and Arabs in ridding themselves of invaders for 1200 years or so in attrition war-fare...So far the Arabs have succeeded  in outlasting the Crusaders, Turks, Brits, and this war too will last unless the Israelis agree to a mutually beneficial Economic based peace that might revitalize the region.
> 
> I believe its Israel's only hope for acceptance and survival
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, I'm very confused about your position.
> You say that Israel needs to, among other things, allow right of return.
> But on the other hand, you say that if Israel doesn't allow right of return among the other demands, then it will be destroyed because of how Arabs outnumber Jews.
> But the thing is, allowing right of return will make Jews a majority in their own country, and will lead to demographic suicide. Right of return will make Arabs out umber Jews by quite a lot.... But INSIDE Israel..
> Do you understand where I'm going with this??
Click to expand...


I have never supported a right of return en mass...I understand that position, however monetary compensation for both Arab and Jew who were affected by these expulsions in this tragic war.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Let's shed a little light here.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so in your opinion, unless the Christians and Muslims of Palestine do not agree to be ruled by Jews, they are hostile.   I think you are kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think I said that; or even implied that.   I have often said that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate grievances and claims.  It is the means by which they attempt to settle those grievances and claims that I have taken issue.
> 
> This is the difference between peaceful means (example BDS) and hostile means (example terror tactics).
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are hostile, and anyone that supports, encourages or facilitates them is culpable and criminal.
> 
> No Palestinian has any special exemption to participate in an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't like to make comparisons between cultures.  In all of human history, you probably could not come up with a total of a 1000 years where the planet was at peace.  It is a rarity to find a period of time absent conflict somewhere.
> 
> If I'm discussing Palestine (whatever that is defined to be), then I tend to stick to what is applicable to that conflict.  I don't inject the cultural difficulties of a totally disconnected society.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What is your point?? How is this related to what Rocco posted??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Let's shed a little light here.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think I said that; or even implied that.   I have often said that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate grievances and claims.  It is the means by which they attempt to settle those grievances and claims that I have taken issue.
> 
> This is the difference between peaceful means (example BDS) and hostile means (example terror tactics).
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are hostile, and anyone that supports, encourages or facilitates them is culpable and criminal.
> 
> No Palestinian has any special exemption to participate in an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't like to make comparisons between cultures.  In all of human history, you probably could not come up with a total of a 1000 years where the planet was at peace.  It is a rarity to find a period of time absent conflict somewhere.
> 
> If I'm discussing Palestine (whatever that is defined to be), then I tend to stick to what is applicable to that conflict.  I don't inject the cultural difficulties of a totally disconnected society.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?? How is this related to what Rocco posted??
Click to expand...


In reality, it is submitted, it is the combination of the right of self-determination and the duty of the administering Power to respect it as an object of* treaty obligation that renders the use of force against self-determination movements inadmissible.* Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations is an international treaty and *the use of force to suppress a struggle for self-determination would violate one of the purposes of the said instrument,* namely, the respect of self-determination of peoples as the basis of friendly relations among nations63

http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1188/1/315675.pdf


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> Let's shed a little light here.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think I said that; or even implied that.   I have often said that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate grievances and claims.  It is the means by which they attempt to settle those grievances and claims that I have taken issue.
> 
> This is the difference between peaceful means (example BDS) and hostile means (example terror tactics).
> 
> The Jihadist and Fedayeen are hostile, and anyone that supports, encourages or facilitates them is culpable and criminal.
> 
> No Palestinian has any special exemption to participate in an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't like to make comparisons between cultures.  In all of human history, you probably could not come up with a total of a 1000 years where the planet was at peace.  It is a rarity to find a period of time absent conflict somewhere.
> 
> If I'm discussing Palestine (whatever that is defined to be), then I tend to stick to what is applicable to that conflict.  I don't inject the cultural difficulties of a totally disconnected society.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947
> 
> It's over.
Click to expand...


Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947
> 
> It's over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
Click to expand...

Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?

One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.

They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
Click to expand...


What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.

It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?*
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
Click to expand...


Yeah but that stupid plan flopped and didn't happen.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
Click to expand...

Palestinian Muslims made the decisions that impacted their Christian neighbors, including the decision to fight rather than accept a United Nations -sponsored partition.



> _It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?_...


Yeah. It IS easy to say that. Under the circumstances.

Given that they had no State of their own, that the Jews had purchased enough tracts of land to cobble-together a State of their own, and that the United Nations gave them an easy and sensible way out, which they failed to take, on the advice of their pan-Arab -focused Muslim-Arab neighbor-states.



> "..._Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?_..."


They chose Conflict rather than Peace, when the United Nations offered them a better way.

They now live with the consequences of that choice.

While they foolishly keep swinging long after the bell has sounded.

Comes a time to admit to one's self that the bell has rung.



> "..._Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?_"


First, a little perspective... Palestinian Christians only represented 10% of the so-called indigenous population prior to 1948, and today they only represent about 7-8% of it.

Second... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had a sufficiently large and influential vote in Palestinian politics in order to drive the so-called 'resistance' process.

Third... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had (a) mustered combat formations to fight against the Israelis or (b) were fighting in Palestinian-Muslim formations under Muslim command.

Isn't that the logical inference one would make, in order to discern whether Palestinian-Christians are substantively complicit in the so-called 'resistance'?

Ya learn something new every day.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?? How is this related to what Rocco posted??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality, it is submitted, it is the combination of the right of self-determination and the duty of the administering Power to respect it as an object of* treaty obligation that renders the use of force against self-determination movements inadmissible.* Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations is an international treaty and *the use of force to suppress a struggle for self-determination would violate one of the purposes of the said instrument,* namely, the respect of self-determination of peoples as the basis of friendly relations among nations63
> 
> http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1188/1/315675.pdf
Click to expand...




Then do show when the Palestinians have had their right to free determination violated, but bear in mind they have elected an interim government and allowed it to become a dictatorship with no help from anyone else.


----------



## montelatici

1. Christians, as the wealthiest of the Palestinians, had influence far beyond their numbers, as is the case in almost every society.

2. Christians not only fought against the Europeans along with Muslim  Palestinians, they formed an important part of the Syrian Army's officer corps.

"Syrian Christians are also officers in the armed forces of Syria. They have preferred to mix in with Muslims rather than form all-Christian units and brigades, and fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against Israeli forces in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 20th century."

Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?? How is this related to what Rocco posted??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality, it is submitted, it is the combination of the right of self-determination and the duty of the administering Power to respect it as an object of* treaty obligation that renders the use of force against self-determination movements inadmissible.* Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations is an international treaty and *the use of force to suppress a struggle for self-determination would violate one of the purposes of the said instrument,* namely, the respect of self-determination of peoples as the basis of friendly relations among nations63
> 
> http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1188/1/315675.pdf
Click to expand...




One day you will produce a link that is applicable to the subject matter, and not a thesis from a doctor of Psychology that does not deal with the situation in Palestine. In fact the treaties mentioned in the thesis have all been superseded and are no longer valid.

 Nice try wont fly


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947
> 
> It's over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
Click to expand...




 Because that is what they agreed to do when the mandate was formed and out into place.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinian Muslims made the decisions that impacted their Christian neighbors, including the decision to fight rather than accept a United Nations -sponsored partition.
> 
> 
> Yeah. It IS easy to say that. Under the circumstances.
> 
> Given that they had no State of their own, that the Jews had purchased enough tracts of land to cobble-together a State of their own, and that the United Nations gave them an easy and sensible way out, which they failed to take, on the advice of their pan-Arab -focused Muslim-Arab neighbor-states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They chose Conflict rather than Peace, when the United Nations offered them a better way.
> 
> They now live with the consequences of that choice.
> 
> While they foolishly keep swinging long after the bell has sounded.
> 
> Comes a time to admit to one's self that the bell has rung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, a little perspective... Palestinian Christians only represented 10% of the so-called indigenous population prior to 1948, and today they only represent about 7-8% of it.
> 
> Second... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had a sufficiently large and influential vote in Palestinian politics in order to drive the so-called 'resistance' process.
> 
> Third... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had (a) mustered combat formations to fight against the Israelis or (b) were fighting in Palestinian-Muslim formations under Muslim command.
> 
> Isn't that the logical inference one would make, in order to discern whether Palestinian-Christians are substantively complicit in the so-called 'resistance'?
> 
> Ya learn something new every day.
Click to expand...


Palestinians Christians always held extraordinary influence in economics, culture, and politics in Palestine.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but that stupid plan flopped and didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Only because the Muslim-Arab Palestinians rejected it.

The wiser, more savvy Jews accepted it.

We can see the relative merits of their choices, even today, by even the most cursory examination of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Which brings to mind the question:

Which was the more 'stupid' (to use _your_ term)... the Partition Plan, or the side which rejected it?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslims-Arab Palestinians should have said 'yes' to the UN Partition Plan of 1947
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they agreed to do when the mandate was formed and out into place.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians did not agree to give up their homes and lands.  The UN decided to give the land to European settlers without considering the rights of the indigenous people.  Indigenous people anywhere would resist.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
Click to expand...





 Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Muslims made the decisions that impacted their Christian neighbors, including the decision to fight rather than accept a United Nations -sponsored partition.
> 
> 
> Yeah. It IS easy to say that. Under the circumstances.
> 
> Given that they had no State of their own, that the Jews had purchased enough tracts of land to cobble-together a State of their own, and that the United Nations gave them an easy and sensible way out, which they failed to take, on the advice of their pan-Arab -focused Muslim-Arab neighbor-states.
> 
> 
> They chose Conflict rather than Peace, when the United Nations offered them a better way.
> 
> They now live with the consequences of that choice.
> 
> While they foolishly keep swinging long after the bell has sounded.
> 
> Comes a time to admit to one's self that the bell has rung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, a little perspective... Palestinian Christians only represented 10% of the so-called indigenous population prior to 1948, and today they only represent about 7-8% of it.
> 
> Second... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had a sufficiently large and influential vote in Palestinian politics in order to drive the so-called 'resistance' process.
> 
> Third... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had (a) mustered combat formations to fight against the Israelis or (b) were fighting in Palestinian-Muslim formations under Muslim command.
> 
> Isn't that the logical inference one would make, in order to discern whether Palestinian-Christians are substantively complicit in the so-called 'resistance'?
> 
> Ya learn something new every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians Christians always held extraordinary influence in economics, culture, and politics in Palestine.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to imply that Palestinian Christians had a substantive role in *deciding* to engage in armed struggle, or that Palestinian Christians have a substantive role in armed combat in that theatre of operations?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> 
> 
> *Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?*
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but that stupid plan flopped and didn't happen.
Click to expand...






 Only in your fantasy world, in reality the UN took the Palestinians refused as an example of their free determination and granted the Jews their nation. Now you cant pick and choose which UN resolution to agree with, you either accept them all or none at all.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's shed some light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?? How is this related to what Rocco posted??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality, it is submitted, it is the combination of the right of self-determination and the duty of the administering Power to respect it as an object of* treaty obligation that renders the use of force against self-determination movements inadmissible.* Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations is an international treaty and *the use of force to suppress a struggle for self-determination would violate one of the purposes of the said instrument,* namely, the respect of self-determination of peoples as the basis of friendly relations among nations63
> 
> http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1188/1/315675.pdf
Click to expand...


You keep bringing up similar points but you never in your own words say what your point is.. Why are you bringing it up??


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Muslims made the decisions that impacted their Christian neighbors, including the decision to fight rather than accept a United Nations -sponsored partition.
> 
> 
> Yeah. It IS easy to say that. Under the circumstances.
> 
> Given that they had no State of their own, that the Jews had purchased enough tracts of land to cobble-together a State of their own, and that the United Nations gave them an easy and sensible way out, which they failed to take, on the advice of their pan-Arab -focused Muslim-Arab neighbor-states.
> 
> 
> They chose Conflict rather than Peace, when the United Nations offered them a better way.
> 
> They now live with the consequences of that choice.
> 
> While they foolishly keep swinging long after the bell has sounded.
> 
> Comes a time to admit to one's self that the bell has rung.
> 
> 
> First, a little perspective... Palestinian Christians only represented 10% of the so-called indigenous population prior to 1948, and today they only represent about 7-8% of it.
> 
> Second... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had a sufficiently large and influential vote in Palestinian politics in order to drive the so-called 'resistance' process.
> 
> Third... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had (a) mustered combat formations to fight against the Israelis or (b) were fighting in Palestinian-Muslim formations under Muslim command.
> 
> Isn't that the logical inference one would make, in order to discern whether Palestinian-Christians are substantively complicit in the so-called 'resistance'?
> 
> Ya learn something new every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians Christians always held extraordinary influence in economics, culture, and politics in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Palestinian Christians had a substantive role in deciding to engage in armed struggle, or that Palestinian Christians have a substantive role in armed combat in that theatre of operations?
Click to expand...


No.

Palestinian Christians are the staunchest supporters of Palestine.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they agreed to do when the mandate was formed and out into place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did not agree to give up their homes and lands.  The UN decided to give the land to European settlers without considering the rights of the indigenous people.  Indigenous people anywhere would resist.
Click to expand...


Are we back to "indigenous" people again.  Isn't it strange then that the British officials in the area reported that the Arabs were arriving in hordes from their poor surrounding countries when the Jews had jobs for them, much as we see other people leaving their poor countries today to better their lives.  When early travelers to the Holy Land passed through, they mainly saw a few Bedouin, and not all these "indigenous" Arabs that some posters want us to think there were.  I wouldn't even call my ancestors indigenous to the U.S. since they were born in Europe and no doubt came to this country for better opportunities.  Where are your ancestors indigenous to,montelati, and why do you think they left the country of their origin?


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. *Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.*  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
Click to expand...

Playing-up the Palestinian-Christian irritation with (_and even passive resistance against, in some cases_) Israel is the latest shell-game trick of Muslim-Arab-Palestinian propagandists and their sympathizers and 'useful idiots'.

Or, more accurately, a resurrection of a previously-failed approach, now that some years have passed since their last attempt, and in the hopes that nobody will remember how it fell on its face last time, when Arafat tried (and failed) to play that card.

These shills pretend a solidarity of purpose and methods between Palestinian Christians and Muslims which doesn't exist, in hopes of drawing-in support and sympathy from impressionable and naive Westerners - there's one born every minute, I guess.

But it's a glaringly-obvious and amateurish thing to do - painfully and humorously transparent - and really isn't going to get them anywhere.

Still... it's entertaining... dinner _AND_ a show !


----------



## Sally

Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. *Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.*  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing-up the Palestinian-Christian irritation with (_and even passive resistance against, in some cases_) Israel is the latest shell-game trick of Muslim-Arab-Palestinian propagandists and their sympathizers and 'useful idiots'.
> 
> Or, more accurately, a resurrection of a previously-failed approach, now that some years have passed since their last attempt, and in the hopes that nobody will remember how it fell on its face last time, when Arafat tried (and failed) to play that card.
> 
> They pretend a solidarity of purpose and methods which doesn't exist, in hopes of drawing-in Western support - there's one born every minute, I guess.
> 
> But it's a glaringly-obvious and amateurish thing to do - painfully and humorously transparent - and isn't really going to get them anywhere.
Click to expand...


So true......

The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians

The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the United Nations proposal had the backing of the so-called international community and international law and would have given both sides a piece of land to call their own without shedding one drop of blood?
> 
> One need look no further than their present miserable, self-inflicted condition, to discern the 'wisdom' of having made the 'other' choice.
> 
> They can thank the shade of the former Grand Mufti and his fascist followers for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
Click to expand...


Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.

Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
Click to expand...


As one Greek Orthodox priest in Israel recently said..........Do not call us Arabs.  We were there way before the Arabs," and he mentioned what the Christians were.  I am sure you can look up his interview with Israel Today since you happened to post an article from their site the other day.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one Greek Orthodox priest in Israel recently said..........Do not call us Arabs.  We were there way before the Arabs," and he mentioned what the Christians were.  I am sure you can look up his interview with Israel Today since you happened to post an article from their site the other day.
Click to expand...


Well, some of the Palestinian Christians are, in fact, of Greek/European descent and have Greek/European names.  So what?

If you are at all concerned about the Christians in Palestine you should research the matter more.  Watching the movie "The Stones Cry Out  The Story of the Palestinian Christians" will help, unless you are so brainwashed that you think that somehow the Palestinian Christians are happy with Jewish oppression.

The Stones Cry Out ? The Story of the Palestinian Christians


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
Click to expand...


Also prominent Palestinian Christians in liberation:
Edward Said
Ghada Karmi
Huwaida Arraf
Diana Buttu
Noura Erakat
Nadia Hijab
Rafeef Zaida

Not to mention organizations like Kairos and Sabeel.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much agree, the Palestinians and Arabs in ridding themselves of invaders for 1200 years or so in attrition war-fare...So far the Arabs have succeeded  in outlasting the Crusaders, Turks, Brits, and this war too will last unless the Israelis agree to a mutually beneficial Economic based peace that might revitalize the region.
> 
> I believe its Israel's only hope for acceptance and survival
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, I'm very confused about your position.
> You say that Israel needs to, among other things, allow right of return.
> But on the other hand, you say that if Israel doesn't allow right of return among the other demands, then it will be destroyed because of how Arabs outnumber Jews.
> But the thing is, allowing right of return will make Jews a majority in their own country, and will lead to demographic suicide. Right of return will make Arabs out umber Jews by quite a lot.... But INSIDE Israel..
> Do you understand where I'm going with this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never supported a right of return en mass...I understand that position, however monetary compensation for both Arab and Jew who were affected by these expulsions in this tragic war.
Click to expand...





 Under the various UN resolutions the onus of reparations lies solely on the heads of the arabs, and they are trying to shirk their responsibilities and make Israel pay for their mistakes. The simple way of sorting this whole mess out would be for those Palestinians claiming a right of return to produce valid land deeds issued by the British mandate or the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one Greek Orthodox priest in Israel recently said..........Do not call us Arabs.  We were there way before the Arabs," and he mentioned what the Christians were.  I am sure you can look up his interview with Israel Today since you happened to post an article from their site the other day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, some of the Palestinian Christians are, in fact, of Greek/European descent and have Greek/European names.  So what?
> 
> If you are at all concerned about the Christians in Palestine you should research the matter more.  Watching the movie "The Stones Cry Out  The Story of the Palestinian Christians" will help, unless you are so brainwashed that you think that somehow the Palestinian Christians are happy with Jewish oppression.
> 
> The Stones Cry Out ? The Story of the Palestinian Christians
Click to expand...


It is quite obvious that you have no interest in what is happening to the Christians in the Muslim world even though they are suffering so much.  You are only interested in the Christians in one tiny area of the world because the Jews happen to be there.  So you can keep giving us your song and dance, but I think intelligent people can see right through you.  Muslims sure like to drag in the Christians when it serves their purpose. 

Bethlehem Christian Blames Islam, Not Israel, for Dwindling Numbers

http://whttp://www.israeltoday.co.i...ww.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/why-


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> 1. Christians, as the wealthiest of the Palestinians, had influence far beyond their numbers, as is the case in almost every society.
> 
> 2. Christians not only fought against the Europeans along with Muslim  Palestinians, they formed an important part of the Syrian Army's officer corps.
> 
> "Syrian Christians are also officers in the armed forces of Syria. They have preferred to mix in with Muslims rather than form all-Christian units and brigades, and fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against Israeli forces in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 20th century."
> 
> Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Syria is not Palestine little boy, and the arabs would not allow any non muslim to be richer than them

In general non muslims are not allowed to bear arms or fight in wars under the laws of dhimma. So show were Christians have been allowed to fight alongside Palestinians against Israel EVER


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one Greek Orthodox priest in Israel recently said..........Do not call us Arabs.  We were there way before the Arabs," and he mentioned what the Christians were.  I am sure you can look up his interview with Israel Today since you happened to post an article from their site the other day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, some of the Palestinian Christians are, in fact, of Greek/European descent and have Greek/European names.  So what?
> 
> If you are at all concerned about the Christians in Palestine you should research the matter more.  Watching the movie "The Stones Cry Out  The Story of the Palestinian Christians" will help, unless you are so brainwashed that you think that somehow the Palestinian Christians are happy with Jewish oppression.
> 
> The Stones Cry Out ? The Story of the Palestinian Christians
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YyuujIgIZE]TRAILER: THE STONES CRY OUT - THE STORY OF THE PALESTINIAN CHRISTIANS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Muslims made the decisions that impacted their Christian neighbors, including the decision to fight rather than accept a United Nations -sponsored partition.
> 
> 
> Yeah. It IS easy to say that. Under the circumstances.
> 
> Given that they had no State of their own, that the Jews had purchased enough tracts of land to cobble-together a State of their own, and that the United Nations gave them an easy and sensible way out, which they failed to take, on the advice of their pan-Arab -focused Muslim-Arab neighbor-states.
> 
> 
> They chose Conflict rather than Peace, when the United Nations offered them a better way.
> 
> They now live with the consequences of that choice.
> 
> While they foolishly keep swinging long after the bell has sounded.
> 
> Comes a time to admit to one's self that the bell has rung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, a little perspective... Palestinian Christians only represented 10% of the so-called indigenous population prior to 1948, and today they only represent about 7-8% of it.
> 
> Second... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had a sufficiently large and influential vote in Palestinian politics in order to drive the so-called 'resistance' process.
> 
> Third... I was not aware that Palestinian Christians had (a) mustered combat formations to fight against the Israelis or (b) were fighting in Palestinian-Muslim formations under Muslim command.
> 
> Isn't that the logical inference one would make, in order to discern whether Palestinian-Christians are substantively complicit in the so-called 'resistance'?
> 
> Ya learn something new every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians Christians always held extraordinary influence in economics, culture, and politics in Palestine.
Click to expand...





 They have always been 4th class occupants with no rights, and were down trodden by the muslims.

 From a group of M.E. Christians

http://www.sizers.org/articles/fuller.htm

 The supposed &#65533;Code&#65533; or &#65533;Pact of &#65533;Umar&#65533; between the second caliph Umar and the conquered Christians living in Syria and Iraq is another source &#65533; although probably as Colin Chapman suggests, &#65533;a compilation that reflects a later stage in the codification of Islamic law concerning conquered peoples&#65533;. The pact summarizes:


&#65533;what came to be regarded as Islamic practice, if not law, concerning Jewish and Christian dhimmis for centuries. In return for toleration and protection from the Muslim rulers, these are the requirements laid down for Jews and Christians:



&#65533;         All non-Muslim males had to pay a poll-tax (jizya) to the Muslim state as an expression of their submission to Muslim rule. (Many documents say they should experience some kind of humiliation while making the payment-for example, by being struck on the neck.) If they owned land, they also had to pay a land tax (kharaj)

&#65533;         Non-Muslims could not engage in military service, since this would involve them in jihad, holy war.

&#65533;         Jews and Christians were not allowed to build new churches or synagogues, or repair those in areas occupied by Muslims.

&#65533;         They were not allowed to display the cross outside churches or to hold public religious processions outside.

&#65533;         Their house could not be built taller than those of Muslims

&#65533;         Their clothes should be different from the clothes worn by Muslims. Often they had to wear a badge to mark them out from Muslims, and sometimes they were required to shave their heads.

&#65533;         They were forbidden to ride on horses, and had to ride on mules or donkeys.

&#65533;         They were required to show respect to Muslims-for instance, by giving up their seats to them.[


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Palestinians, especially the Christians who stood to lose the most having the most homes in Jewish areas, have agreed to give up their homes and lands to a bunch of European settlers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what they agreed to do when the mandate was formed and out into place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did not agree to give up their homes and lands.  The UN decided to give the land to European settlers without considering the rights of the indigenous people.  Indigenous people anywhere would resist.
Click to expand...





 What about the rights of the indigenous Jews who faced losing everything all over again at the hands of the muslims. Does the same rule apply to them as applies to the muslims insofar as only 2 years residency is required to become a fully naturalised Jewish Palestinian with Israeli citizenship. The land was given to the Jews and not European settlers as their homeland. The muslims were seen as mongrel dogs by everyone including the arab muslims and were moved on constantly. They had no land to give up as they had become stateless vagabonds.  Check your history books for evidence of just what was going on in Palestine from 1850 to 1948.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians Christians always held extraordinary influence in economics, culture, and politics in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Palestinian Christians had a substantive role in deciding to engage in armed struggle, or that Palestinian Christians have a substantive role in armed combat in that theatre of operations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Palestinian Christians are the staunchest supporters of Palestine.
Click to expand...




 Is that why their numbers are dwindling so fast and they are migrating to Israel. The Christians are in decline in Palestine because of Islamic ethnic cleansing and genocide, so were you get your ideas from I don't know.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
Click to expand...





 The majority of so called Palestinians can only trace habitation in Palestine going back 2 or 3 generations at most. The history of the region shows that even the Ottomans had to force people to migrate to Palestine it was that under populated. They tried 3 times to build up the population this way but each time the migrants returned to their homes. It was only when the Ottomans allowed Jewish migration to the area that things started to look up. The Jews bought land from Ottoman owners and turned it into fertile farms, this attracted the muslim itinerants to come seeking work. This led to an explosion in the demographics of Palestine in the late 19C . As late as 1969 Palestinian muslims were heard to say that they would be going back home once the Jews had been driven from Israel, by home they meant Syria, iran, Iraq, Jordan and saudi .  

 I likened them to mongrel dogs having no home or purpose, try getting an education little boy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Palestinian Christians had a substantive role in deciding to engage in armed struggle, or that Palestinian Christians have a substantive role in armed combat in that theatre of operations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Palestinian Christians are the staunchest supporters of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why their numbers are dwindling so fast and they are migrating to Israel. The Christians are in decline in Palestine because of Islamic ethnic cleansing and genocide, so were you get your ideas from I don't know.
Click to expand...


Do you have a source for that that is not connected to Israel?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdaWyFVKy4A]Palestinian Christians Respond to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one Greek Orthodox priest in Israel recently said..........Do not call us Arabs.  We were there way before the Arabs," and he mentioned what the Christians were.  I am sure you can look up his interview with Israel Today since you happened to post an article from their site the other day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, some of the Palestinian Christians are, in fact, of Greek/European descent and have Greek/European names.  So what?
> 
> If you are at all concerned about the Christians in Palestine you should research the matter more.  Watching the movie "The Stones Cry Out  The Story of the Palestinian Christians" will help, unless you are so brainwashed that you think that somehow the Palestinian Christians are happy with Jewish oppression.
> 
> The Stones Cry Out ? The Story of the Palestinian Christians
Click to expand...






Another of your links that you posted under defeated67


----------



## P F Tinmore

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKXnyM7giac]Christians Harassed By Israel ~ Zionists Against Churches - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also prominent Palestinian Christians in liberation:
> Edward Said
> Ghada Karmi
> Huwaida Arraf
> Diana Buttu
> Noura Erakat
> Nadia Hijab
> Rafeef Zaida
> 
> Not to mention organizations like Kairos and Sabeel.
Click to expand...





 Edward said was an agnostic

 Ghada Karmi is a muslim

 Huwaida Arraf is an American

 Diana Buttu is a muslim

 Noura Erakat is a muslim

 Nadia Hijab is a muslim

 Rafeef Zaida is a muslim


 All details taken from their pages on Wikipedia, so it looks like you are caught out LYING again.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Christians, as the wealthiest of the Palestinians, had influence far beyond their numbers, as is the case in almost every society.
> 
> 2. Christians not only fought against the Europeans along with Muslim  Palestinians, they formed an important part of the Syrian Army's officer corps.
> 
> "Syrian Christians are also officers in the armed forces of Syria. They have preferred to mix in with Muslims rather than form all-Christian units and brigades, and fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against Israeli forces in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 20th century."
> 
> Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria is not Palestine little boy, and the arabs would not allow any non muslim to be richer than them
> 
> In general non muslims are not allowed to bear arms or fight in wars under the laws of dhimma. So show were Christians have been allowed to fight alongside Palestinians against Israel EVER
Click to expand...


Syrians are Arabs and some of the Syrian Army's best officers are Christian, and bear arms. 

Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]

The Arab Liberation Army, the only Arab defense outfit  considered Palestinian in 1947-48, contained Palestinian Christians as well as European Christians, German and British.  

Arab Liberation Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lebanese Army's officer corps is majority non-muslim while the troops are mostly Muslim.

Where in the heck did you get the idea that non-Muslims can't serve in the military of Muslim countries these days?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Grand Mufti have to do with the plight of Palestinian Christians?  Being the wealthiest of the Palestinians, they lost the most.
> 
> It's easy to say that "they should have" done this or done that, but in reality what people just lie down and allow others to take their land and homes away from them?  Maybe the native americans should have just gone willingly into reservations without all the fighting against the Europeans that were taking their land, but do you fault them for resisting?   Why do you fault the Christians and Muslims for resisting European occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
Click to expand...


You refer to Israelis as Nazis which makes kind of a disgusting person, by the way,


----------



## P F Tinmore

phoenall said:


> p f tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> palestinians can trace their ancestry to roman times and before.  Christian palestinians were harmed the most by the european settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their muslim counterparts.  Christian palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance kamal nasser, hanan ashrawi, janet mikhail (mayor of ramallah), ghazi hanania, george habash etc.
> 
> Calling palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. You are, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also prominent palestinian christians in liberation:
> Edward said
> ghada karmi
> huwaida arraf
> diana buttu
> noura erakat
> nadia hijab
> rafeef zaida
> 
> not to mention organizations like kairos and sabeel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward said was an agnostic - born to christian family
> 
> ghada karmi is a muslim - muslim
> 
> huwaida arraf is an american - christian
> 
> diana buttu is a muslim - doesn't say
> 
> noura erakat is a muslim - doesn't say
> 
> nadia hijab is a muslim - muslim
> 
> rafeef zaida is a muslim - doesn't say but she did mention that she was not muslim.
> 
> 
> All details taken from their pages on wikipedia, so it looks like you are caught out lying again.
Click to expand...


ok.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything  when it was him that started the ball rolling with BLOOD LIBELS against the Jews and declaring that they would be wiped out. Why do you lump the Christians in with the Jews when the Christians suffered just as much as the Jews did at muslim hands.  You have been given innumerable links that show the muslims are ethnically cleansing all non muslims from the M.E and are in the process of mass genocide of the religious groups they don't want. The Europeans can all trace their ancestry back to one of the 12 tribes of Israel through their DNA, the Palestinians are no better than mongrel dogs and cant trace their ancestry on the land any further than 3 generations. The majority are late arrivals looking for work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refer to Israelis as Nazis which makes kind of a disgusting person, by the way,
Click to expand...


I may have stated that the Israelis are utilizing Nazi tactics.  So have some prominent Jews. Is Mr. Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, disgusting to you too?:

"One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.  Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis. 

He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human. 

"It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured." 

Auschwitz survivor: 'Israel acts like Nazis'


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians can trace their ancestry to Roman times and before.  Christian Palestinians were harmed the most by the European settlers, that's why they are "lumped" in with their Muslim counterparts.  Christian Palestinians have always been in leadership positions in the resistance Kamal Nasser, Hanan Ashrawi, Janet Mikhail (Mayor of Ramallah), Ghazi Hanania, George Habash etc.
> 
> Calling Palestinians "mongrel dogs" is reveals want kind of racist p.o.s. you are, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refer to Israelis as Nazis which makes kind of a disgusting person, by the way,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have stated that the Israelis are utilizing Nazi tactics.  So have some prominent Jews. Is Mr. Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, disgusting to you too?:
> 
> "One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.  Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
> 
> He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.
> 
> "It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured."
> 
> Auschwitz survivor: 'Israel acts like Nazis'
Click to expand...


Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You refer to Israelis as Nazis which makes kind of a disgusting person, by the way,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have stated that the Israelis are utilizing Nazi tactics.  So have some prominent Jews. Is Mr. Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, disgusting to you too?:
> 
> "One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.  Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
> 
> He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.
> 
> "It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured."
> 
> Auschwitz survivor: 'Israel acts like Nazis'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Click to expand...


Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.  

These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis. 

Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State

Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> 1. Christians, as the wealthiest of the Palestinians, had influence far beyond their numbers, as is the case in almost every society.
> 
> 2. Christians not only fought against the Europeans along with Muslim  Palestinians, they formed an important part of the Syrian Army's officer corps.
> 
> "Syrian Christians are also officers in the armed forces of Syria. They have preferred to mix in with Muslims rather than form all-Christian units and brigades, and fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against Israeli forces in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 20th century."
> 
> Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Palestinian mandate was a much poorer land than syria.  Land was being sold at 7 times it's value, which for locals was a lot of money.  Famines in the region had force many to migrate to europe and the US, before and after WWI and with the means from selling their land they could join their families where they could make their "riches" instead of barely subsiding on poor land with little irrigation.
There were many reason for locals of all faiths to want to sell land to jews.  Mostly it was so the land could be developed and bring in more jobs and trade that would benefit all the people.


----------



## Sally

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Christians, as the wealthiest of the Palestinians, had influence far beyond their numbers, as is the case in almost every society.
> 
> 2. Christians not only fought against the Europeans along with Muslim  Palestinians, they formed an important part of the Syrian Army's officer corps.
> 
> "Syrian Christians are also officers in the armed forces of Syria. They have preferred to mix in with Muslims rather than form all-Christian units and brigades, and fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against Israeli forces in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 20th century."
> 
> Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian mandate was a much poorer land than syria.  Land was being sold at 7 times it's value, which for locals was a lot of money.  Famines in the region had force many to migrate to europe and the US, before and after WWI and with the means from selling their land they could join their families where they could make their "riches" instead of barely subsiding on poor land with little irrigation.
> There were many reason for locals of all faiths to want to sell land to jews.  Mostly it was so the land could be developed and bring in more jobs and trade that would benefit all the people.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I am wrong, Aris, but wasn't much of the land owned by rich absentee Turkish landlords, and the Arabs working on the Turks' land were like what we would call sharecroppers here in the U.S.  The Turkish landowners didn't seem to have a problem selling their land to Jews at exhorbitant prices.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may have stated that the Israelis are utilizing Nazi tactics.  So have some prominent Jews. Is Mr. Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, disgusting to you too?:
> 
> "One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.  Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
> 
> He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.
> 
> "It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured."
> 
> Auschwitz survivor: 'Israel acts like Nazis'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
Click to expand...


You don't say?  And I am Golden Feather of the Navajo Nation.  On the Internet we can be whatever we want to be.  Say, did you ever read the article entitled East Meets West where the reporter stationed in Berlin said that the Palestinians and the NeoNazi were protesting together in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing?   Yessiree, Europe is certain anti-Semitic; and with all those Muslims flooding in, it is certainly more so.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't say?  And I am Golden Feather of the Navajo Nation.  On the Internet we can be whatever we want to be.  Say, did you ever read the article entitled East Meets West where the reporter stationed in Berlin said that the Palestinians and the NeoNazi were protesting together in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing?   Yessiree, Europe is certain anti-Semitic; and with all those Muslims flooding in, it is certainly more so.
Click to expand...


And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't say?  And I am Golden Feather of the Navajo Nation.  On the Internet we can be whatever we want to be.  Say, did you ever read the article entitled East Meets West where the reporter stationed in Berlin said that the Palestinians and the NeoNazi were protesting together in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing?   Yessiree, Europe is certain anti-Semitic; and with all those Muslims flooding in, it is certainly more so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.
Click to expand...


Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't say?  And I am Golden Feather of the Navajo Nation.  On the Internet we can be whatever we want to be.  Say, did you ever read the article entitled East Meets West where the reporter stationed in Berlin said that the Palestinians and the NeoNazi were protesting together in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing?   Yessiree, Europe is certain anti-Semitic; and with all those Muslims flooding in, it is certainly more so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.
Click to expand...


Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
Click to expand...

The reference was to collaboration with the Nazis, in dealing with the Jews of Europe, and primarily once they were conquered and occupied, rather than whether or not they originally fought against the Nazis, before being conquered or assimilated or allied...

Some macro-level information on this European collaboration can be found in the usual and obligatory Wiki article...

Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of European countries collaborating with the Nazis to round-up, isolate or deport Jews, or transport them to border hand-off control points, on their way to the extermination camps...

Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Latvia
Monaco
Netherlands (Holland)
Norway
Poland
Ukraine
British Channel Islands

Our colleague is quite correct in observing that the Axis Powers in Europe (Germany, Italy) and a large number of Nazi -conquered and occupied countries, collaborated extensively with the Nazis, to deal with the Jews harshly.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reference was to collaboration with the Nazis, in dealing with the Jews of Europe, and primarily once they were conquered and occupied, rather than whether or not they originally fought against the Nazis, before being conquered or assimilated or allied...
> 
> Some macro-level information on this European collaboration can be found in the usual and obligatory Wiki article...
> 
> Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of European countries collaborating with the Nazis to round-up, isolate or deport Jews, or transport them to border hand-off control points, on their way to the extermination camps...
> 
> Estonia
> France
> Germany
> Greece
> Italy
> Latvia
> Monaco
> Netherlands (Holland)
> Norway
> Poland
> Ukraine
> British Channel Islands
> 
> Our colleague is quite correct in observing that the Axis Powers in Europe (Germany, Italy) and a large number of Nazi -conquered and occupied countries, collaborated extensively with the Nazis, to deal with the Jews harshly.
Click to expand...


Occupied countries are not sovereign.  More Polish Christians were murdered by the Nazis than Jews, for example.  More countries in Europe fought against the Nazis than fought with the Nazis.


----------



## MHunterB

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may have stated that the Israelis are utilizing Nazi tactics.  So have some prominent Jews. Is Mr. Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, disgusting to you too?:
> 
> "One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.  Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
> 
> He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.
> 
> "It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured."
> 
> Auschwitz survivor: 'Israel acts like Nazis'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
Click to expand...


Beliefs are not fact:  they have no truth value.

Many people a few hundred years ago believed in the blood libel, too.  Among them certainly were many prominent Christian clergy of different Churches -  John Chrysostom and Martin Luther, to name just two.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
> 
> 
> 
> The reference was to collaboration with the Nazis, in dealing with the Jews of Europe, and primarily once they were conquered and occupied, rather than whether or not they originally fought against the Nazis, before being conquered or assimilated or allied...
> 
> Some macro-level information on this European collaboration can be found in the usual and obligatory Wiki article...
> 
> Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of European countries collaborating with the Nazis to round-up, isolate or deport Jews, or transport them to border hand-off control points, on their way to the extermination camps...
> 
> Estonia
> France
> Germany
> Greece
> Italy
> Latvia
> Monaco
> Netherlands (Holland)
> Norway
> Poland
> Ukraine
> British Channel Islands
> 
> Our colleague is quite correct in observing that the Axis Powers in Europe (Germany, Italy) and a large number of Nazi -conquered and occupied countries, collaborated extensively with the Nazis, to deal with the Jews harshly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Occupied countries are not sovereign.  More Polish Christians were murdered by the Nazis than Jews, for example.  More countries in Europe fought against the Nazis than fought with the Nazis.
Click to expand...

Let's not quibble about sovereignty.

Governments (even puppet ones) cannot carry out large-scale roundings-up and deportations of a particular religious group without the cooperation of networks of willing and eager indigenous informers and police and militia.

The allied or occupied governments of Bulgaria and Denmark, for example, just said 'No', and managed to save their Jews, rather than ship them off to the abbattoir.

Our colleague's observations about many Europeans being only too glad to cooperate with the Nazis, regarding their own local Jews, has sufficient merit and substantiation to stand on its own merits.

Oh, and, let's add Hungary to that long list of countries that collaborated with the Nazis to slaughter the Jews of Europe.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reference was to collaboration with the Nazis, in dealing with the Jews of Europe, and primarily once they were conquered and occupied, rather than whether or not they originally fought against the Nazis, before being conquered or assimilated or allied...
> 
> Some macro-level information on this European collaboration can be found in the usual and obligatory Wiki article...
> 
> Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of European countries collaborating with the Nazis to round-up, isolate or deport Jews, or transport them to border hand-off control points, on their way to the extermination camps...
> 
> Estonia
> France
> Germany
> Greece
> Italy
> Latvia
> Monaco
> Netherlands (Holland)
> Norway
> Poland
> Ukraine
> British Channel Islands
> 
> Our colleague is quite correct in observing that the Axis Powers in Europe (Germany, Italy) and a large number of Nazi -conquered and occupied countries, collaborated extensively with the Nazis, to deal with the Jews harshly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupied countries are not sovereign.  More Polish Christians were murdered by the Nazis than Jews, for example.  More countries in Europe fought against the Nazis than fought with the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's not quibble about sovereignty.
> 
> Governments cannot carry out large-scale roundings-up and deportations of a particular religious group without the cooperation of networks of indigenous informers and police and militia.
> 
> Our colleague's observations about many Europeans being only too glad to cooperate with the Nazis, regarding their own local Jews, has sufficient merit and substantiation to stand on its own merits.
> 
> Oh, and, let's add Hungary to that long list.
Click to expand...


When my mom and her family returned to Poland after the War, they couldn't remain there because of pogroms against the Jews by Poles.


----------



## MHunterB

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
Click to expand...


Gee:  Vichy France, Norway's Vidkun Quisling, Sweden and its 'neutrality', Ireland and its 'neutrality, the Croatians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, etc, etc who volunteered as 'auxiliaries' to round up Jews to be 'deported' or murdered - there were a lot of Nazi-suckers in Europe.

Oddly enough, though - the 'other' Axis ally, Finland, was only in it to resist the Russian hegemony and the few Jews in Finland were not attacked.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Christians Harassed By Israel ~ Zionists Against Churches - YouTube



Iranian TV


----------



## Sally

MHunterB said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee:  Vichy France, Norway's Vidkun Quisling, Sweden and its 'neutrality', Ireland and its 'neutrality, the Croatians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, etc, etc who volunteered as 'auxiliaries' to round up Jews to be 'deported' or murdered - there were a lot of Nazi-suckers in Europe.
> 
> Oddly enough, though - the 'other' Axis ally, Finland, was only in it to resist the Russian hegemony and the few Jews in Finland were not attacked.
Click to expand...


As you can see, Miss Know-it-all asked me where I got that nonsense.  At one time there was a Hungarian poster who actually was in Auschwitz.  She could have told Miss Know-it-all about the non-Jewish Hungarians and how they cooperated with the Nazis.  I would imagine that the madrassa Miss Know-it-all attended wasn't big on facts about World War II.


----------



## montelatici

Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them.  Once defeated and occupied, the anti-semites within the society held sway, how can you not understand this.  Italy which was not occupied and they could refuse Nazi orders protected Jews. I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:

""The Italians are extremely lax in their treatment of Jews. They protect Italian Jews both in Tunis and in occupied France and won't permit their being drafted for work or compelled to wear the Star of David."


Goebbels complains of Italians' treatment of Jews Dec 13, 1942.

"Mussolini never had the stomach&#8212;or the conviction&#8212;for the extremes of Goebbels, Goering, and Hitler. And certainly the majority of the Italian people never subscribed to the growing anti-Semitic rhetoric of the regime. In fact, the Italians refused to deport Jews from Italy-or from Italian-occupied Croatia or France-to Auschwitz."

Goebbels complains of Italians' treatment of Jews ? History.com This Day in History ? 12/13/1942


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them.  Once defeated and occupied, the anti-semites within the society held sway, how can you not understand this.  Italy which was not occupied and they could refuse Nazi orders protected Jews. I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:
> 
> ""The Italians are extremely lax in their treatment of Jews. They protect Italian Jews both in Tunis and in occupied France and won't permit their being drafted for work or compelled to wear the Star of David."
> 
> 
> Goebbels complains of Italians' treatment of Jews Dec 13, 1942.
> 
> "Mussolini never had the stomachor the convictionfor the extremes of Goebbels, Goering, and Hitler. And certainly the majority of the Italian people never subscribed to the growing anti-Semitic rhetoric of the regime. In fact, the Italians refused to deport Jews from Italy-or from Italian-occupied Croatia or France-to Auschwitz."
> 
> Goebbels complains of Italians' treatment of Jews ? History.com This Day in History ? 12/13/1942



No matter how you try to swing it, there were enough people in Europe who were only too happy to help the Nazis.  And, let me reiterate, that Hitler thought he could get away with murdering millions because the world was silent when the Turkish Muslims murdered over a million Armenians along with Greeks and Assyrians.


----------



## montelatici

There are bad people in every society.  But, what does what the Turks did have to do with the Palestinians?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> There are bad people in every society.  But, what does what the Turks did have to do with the Palestinians?


Ummmmm... the Turks ruled over Palestine for 400 years, until almost within living memory?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> _Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them_...


Again, nobody is disputing that.



> ..._Once defeated and occupied, the anti-semites within the society held sway, how can you not understand this_...


Again, nobody is disputing that.

You and your opposites on this question merely differ pertaining to scope and scale.



> Italy which was not occupied and they could refuse Nazi orders protected Jews...


Again, nobody is disputing that.



> ..._I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:_...


2,000 years of European pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres - virtually all of it _long_ before the advent of Fascism, suggest a different conclusion.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them_...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..._Once defeated and occupied, the anti-semites within the society held sway, how can you not understand this_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> You and your opposites on this question merely differ pertaining to scope and scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Italy which was not occupied and they could refuse Nazi orders protected Jews...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..._I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2,000 years of European pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres - virtually all of it _long_ before the advent of Fascism, suggest a different conclusion.
Click to expand...


I don't know what the 2.000 years of pograms  have to do with my hypothesis that Nazi occupied countries would have behaved like Italy and Italians had they been free to do so.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them_...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> You and your opposites on this question merely differ pertaining to scope and scale.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..._I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2,000 years of European pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres - virtually all of it _long_ before the advent of Fascism, suggest a different conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what the 2.000 years of pograms  have to do with my hypothesis that Nazi occupied countries would have behaved like Italy and Italians had they been free to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes you do.

You're just being obtuse.

But I will spell it out for you, nonetheless.

The 2000 years of pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres of Jews, correlate to the mindset of the Europeans of those times, and the undercurrent of anti-Semitism still highly extant and operative across the European continent at the time of the Holocaust.

Translation: Any collection of peoples whose culture and traditions and society are deeply immersed in a centuries-old persecution of another, are far more likely, as a people, to support and participate in any attempt to actually exterminate the target population.

And, if you cannot see that correlation, then I doubt that anything else that I say in that regard will prove efficacious.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> You and your opposites on this question merely differ pertaining to scope and scale.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 2,000 years of European pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres - virtually all of it _long_ before the advent of Fascism, suggest a different conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the 2.000 years of pograms  have to do with my hypothesis that Nazi occupied countries would have behaved like Italy and Italians had they been free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you do.
> 
> You're just being obtuse.
> 
> But I will spell it out for you, nonetheless.
> 
> The 2000 years of pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres of Jews, correlate to the mindset of the Europeans of those times, and the undercurrent of anti-Semitism still highly extant and operative across the European continent at the time of the Holocaust.
> 
> Translation: Any collection of peoples whose culture and traditions and society are deeply immersed in a centuries-old persecution of another, are far more likely, as a people, to support and participate in any attempt to actually exterminate the target population.
> 
> And, if you cannot see that correlation, then I doubt that anything else that I say in that regard will prove efficacious.
Click to expand...



Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.


That sort of persecution only lasted 200-400 years, not 2000.

And it was not based on the idea that Blacks had killed the Son of God, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks controlled Commerce and Banking, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks kept to themselves and were therefore suspect, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks were an insidious parasitical drain upon Western civilization, as the Jews had unfairly been attributed as being.

Apples and oranges, and a Major League -caliber faux analogy.

Our colleague's original observation about long-running, deep-running anti-Semitism in Europe is a well-documented and incontrovertible and unassailable fact, despite your protestations to the contrary, and her observation stands - having sufficient merit and substance to do so regardless of your attempted (and failed) assault on its veracity.

End of seqeuence.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of persecution only lasted 200-400 years, not 2000.
> 
> And it was not based on the idea that Blacks had killed the Son of God, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks controlled Commerce and Banking, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks kept to themselves and were therefore suspect, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks were an insidious parasitical drain upon Western civilization, as the Jews had unfairly been attributed as being.
> 
> Apples and oranges, and a Major League -caliber faux analogy.
> 
> Our colleague's original observation about long-running, deep-running anti-Semitism in Europe is a well-documented and incontrovertible and unassailable fact, despite your protestations to the contrary, and her observation stands - having sufficient merit and substance to do so regardless of your attempted (and failed) assault on its veracity.
> 
> End of seqeuence.
Click to expand...


So, if something lasts 400-500 years it is different from lasting 2,000 years.  I see.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of persecution only lasted 200-400 years, not 2000.
> 
> And it was not based on the idea that Blacks had killed the Son of God, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks controlled Commerce and Banking, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks kept to themselves and were therefore suspect, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks were an insidious parasitical drain upon Western civilization, as the Jews had unfairly been attributed as being.
> 
> Apples and oranges, and a Major League -caliber faux analogy.
> 
> Our colleague's original observation about long-running, deep-running anti-Semitism in Europe is a well-documented and incontrovertible and unassailable fact, despite your protestations to the contrary, and her observation stands - having sufficient merit and substance to do so regardless of your attempted (and failed) assault on its veracity.
> 
> End of seqeuence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if something lasts 400-500 years it is different from lasting 2,000 years.  I see.
Click to expand...


One thing that was left out is that the Muslims are the ones still into slavery in these modern times.  My goodness, who would want to be an abed?  Anyhow, speaking of years, you might want to contact this Christian author and tell him you disagree with everything he is saying. 

https://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of persecution only lasted 200-400 years, not 2000.
> 
> And it was not based on the idea that Blacks had killed the Son of God, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks controlled Commerce and Banking, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks kept to themselves and were therefore suspect, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks were an insidious parasitical drain upon Western civilization, as the Jews had unfairly been attributed as being.
> 
> Apples and oranges, and a Major League -caliber faux analogy.
> 
> Our colleague's original observation about long-running, deep-running anti-Semitism in Europe is a well-documented and incontrovertible and unassailable fact, despite your protestations to the contrary, and her observation stands - having sufficient merit and substance to do so regardless of your attempted (and failed) assault on its veracity.
> 
> End of seqeuence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if something lasts 400-500 years it is different from lasting 2,000 years.  I see.
Click to expand...

You cherry-pick Duration and ignore the substantive differences in multiple Causes and Accusations and Motives and Flashpoints as touched-upon in the second paragraph.

Inadequate for our purposes here.

I was right to call an end to the sequence when I did, apparently.

I don't do 'Automatic Gainsay' - nor Ankle-Biting ad nauseum ad infinitum.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Christians, as the wealthiest of the Palestinians, had influence far beyond their numbers, as is the case in almost every society.
> 
> 2. Christians not only fought against the Europeans along with Muslim  Palestinians, they formed an important part of the Syrian Army's officer corps.
> 
> "Syrian Christians are also officers in the armed forces of Syria. They have preferred to mix in with Muslims rather than form all-Christian units and brigades, and fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against Israeli forces in the various Arab-Israeli conflicts of the 20th century."
> 
> Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria is not Palestine little boy, and the arabs would not allow any non muslim to be richer than them
> 
> In general non muslims are not allowed to bear arms or fight in wars under the laws of dhimma. So show were Christians have been allowed to fight alongside Palestinians against Israel EVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrians are Arabs and some of the Syrian Army's best officers are Christian, and bear arms.
> 
> Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The Arab Liberation Army, the only Arab defense outfit  considered Palestinian in 1947-48, contained Palestinian Christians as well as European Christians, German and British.  

Arab Liberation Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lebanese Army's officer corps is majority non-muslim while the troops are mostly Muslim.

Where in the heck did you get the idea that non-Muslims can't serve in the military of Muslim countries these days?[/QUOTE]




 The dhimma laws that are in existence in all extremist Islamic states like iran, gaza, west bank, Syria etc.      By the way here is the truth about Christians in the M.E.

Palestinian Areas « Christian & Church Persecution

 Palestinian Authority Declares Baptist Church Illegitimate in West Bank
Thursday, March 29th, 2012 

The Palestinian Authority declared that the First Baptist Church of Bethlehem, which is adjacent to the site of Jesus' birthplace, is illegitimate, the Christian Post reports.

 Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians
Saturday, March 10th, 2012 

While the future of the church in the West Bank town of Bethlehem is in jeopardy, Christians are not endangered but flourishing is Israel, Michael Oren writes in The Wall Street Journal.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p f tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> also prominent palestinian christians in liberation:
> Edward said
> ghada karmi
> huwaida arraf
> diana buttu
> noura erakat
> nadia hijab
> rafeef zaida
> 
> not to mention organizations like kairos and sabeel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward said was an agnostic - born to christian family
> 
> ghada karmi is a muslim - muslim
> 
> huwaida arraf is an american - christian
> 
> diana buttu is a muslim - doesn't say
> 
> noura erakat is a muslim - doesn't say
> 
> nadia hijab is a muslim - muslim
> 
> rafeef zaida is a muslim - doesn't say but she did mention that she was not muslim.
> 
> 
> All details taken from their pages on wikipedia, so it looks like you are caught out lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok.
Click to expand...




 Did say just that you don't want to read that. the American was born into the muslim faith and Edward Said was a declared agnostic.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may have stated that the Israelis are utilizing Nazi tactics.  So have some prominent Jews. Is Mr. Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, disgusting to you too?:
> 
> "One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.  Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
> 
> He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.
> 
> "It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured."
> 
> Auschwitz survivor: 'Israel acts like Nazis'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
Click to expand...





 Then you will be able to recite the Beattitudes without looking them up on the internet and chant the Decamoran .


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't say?  And I am Golden Feather of the Navajo Nation.  On the Internet we can be whatever we want to be.  Say, did you ever read the article entitled East Meets West where the reporter stationed in Berlin said that the Palestinians and the NeoNazi were protesting together in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing?   Yessiree, Europe is certain anti-Semitic; and with all those Muslims flooding in, it is certainly more so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.
Click to expand...




 Yes because the more prevalent decent people of Europe see how the muslims side with NEONAZIS and hatch plots with them to violently attack the Jews. This is why the BDS movement is failing in Europe as many people see it as a NEONAZI racial attack.

 Now back to you being a Catholic, can you tell me the stations of the cross and what is represented in the icon of Jesus ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you think Europe becoming more anti-semitic is a good thing for Israel?  I don't get it, whose side are you on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but Europe has always been anti-Semitic (why do you think during World War II many of the Europeans were happy to side with the Nazis?), but with your fellow Muslims flooding in, they have become even more anti-Semitic.  You can do a little research on this, can't you?  Actually I feel sorry for the Europeans regardless of their being so anti-Semitic.  Their countries are going down the drain with so many Muslims, legal and illegal, leaving their own Muslim countries to settle there.  Imagine have no-go areas where the Police and Fire Departments are afraid to enter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
Click to expand...





 The British Royal Family sided with Hitler and it nearly destroyed them. But you had Austria, Balkans, Hungary, Russia initially, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Finland all friendly with Germany. The Vichy government of France was also one of the axis nations .

 You want to know about Europe why don't you ask a European ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of Italy, which Europeans sided with the Nazis?  From what I recall nearly every other European  country went to war against the Nazis, Russia included.  Where did you learn this nonsense?
> 
> 
> 
> The reference was to collaboration with the Nazis, in dealing with the Jews of Europe, and primarily once they were conquered and occupied, rather than whether or not they originally fought against the Nazis, before being conquered or assimilated or allied...
> 
> Some macro-level information on this European collaboration can be found in the usual and obligatory Wiki article...
> 
> Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of European countries collaborating with the Nazis to round-up, isolate or deport Jews, or transport them to border hand-off control points, on their way to the extermination camps...
> 
> Estonia
> France
> Germany
> Greece
> Italy
> Latvia
> Monaco
> Netherlands (Holland)
> Norway
> Poland
> Ukraine
> British Channel Islands
> 
> Our colleague is quite correct in observing that the Axis Powers in Europe (Germany, Italy) and a large number of Nazi -conquered and occupied countries, collaborated extensively with the Nazis, to deal with the Jews harshly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Occupied countries are not sovereign.  More Polish Christians were murdered by the Nazis than Jews, for example.  More countries in Europe fought against the Nazis than fought with the Nazis.
Click to expand...





 Clutching at straws again, can I see another epic fail on your part with another of your ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA fantasies.

 Now take your facts and render them down to per capita figures and you see how more Jews were murdered in Poland by the Polish than by the Germans. The Polish Christians were minimal considering the numbers living in the country at the time. Of the Jewish population 90% perished, now imagine if 90% of the Christians had perished ?


----------



## Kondor3

Liars and charlatans, all.


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall; montelatici; Sally;  _et al,_

Remember that the same writer, an Italian journalist, Giulio Meotti also wrote: 

Time for a Nuremberg Trial for Hamas and the Pipers of Death



Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen this poster on any other forums here comparing her fellow Muslims to the Nazis even though her fellow Muslims are busy murdering people in the name of their religion?  It is pathetic how all those NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites start comparing the Israeli Jews to the Nazis when they really should be comparing the Muslims to Nazis.  In fact, Hitler thought he could get away with all his killings of those he felt undesirable because the world was quiet when the Muslim Turks killed over a million Armenians plus Assyrians and Greeks at the beginning of the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I am Roman Catholic and have received all the sacraments except one, thank goodness.
> 
> These are not neo-nazi sites at all, they are normal non-American news/media sites.  Even Israeli sites include the same information that perhaps does not get on the U.S. airwaves.  This is an op-ed that condemns the fact that so many Europeans see Israel as a Nazi State, but the fact is, many people believe this about the behavior of the Israelis.
> 
> Op-Ed: Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State
> 
> Two Hundred Million Europeans See Israel as Nazi State - Op-Eds - Israel National News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you will be able to recite the Beattitudes without looking them up on the internet and chant the Decamoran .
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The issue is perception.  

There is no question that the reputation of Israel has been damaged.  The current leadership of Israel doesn't have a clear understanding of the intangible _(but very considerable)_ value of the reputation of the State of Israel or the Jewish State.  And the current leadership of Israel pays little attention to the maintenance of that reputation --- or --- the impact that certain political decisions have on the image of the State of Israel.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done about that.  It is a condition that the Israeli People have to resolve domestically.  All we can tell them is that they do not always send the right message through their action and deeds.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MrMax

*I will not Bow!*

That's for kissing carpets.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them.  Once defeated and occupied, the anti-semites within the society held sway, how can you not understand this.  Italy which was not occupied and they could refuse Nazi orders protected Jews. I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:
> 
> ""The Italians are extremely lax in their treatment of Jews. They protect Italian Jews both in Tunis and in occupied France and won't permit their being drafted for work or compelled to wear the Star of David."
> 
> 
> Goebbels complains of Italians' treatment of Jews Dec 13, 1942.
> 
> "Mussolini never had the stomachor the convictionfor the extremes of Goebbels, Goering, and Hitler. And certainly the majority of the Italian people never subscribed to the growing anti-Semitic rhetoric of the regime. In fact, the Italians refused to deport Jews from Italy-or from Italian-occupied Croatia or France-to Auschwitz."
> 
> Goebbels complains of Italians' treatment of Jews ? History.com This Day in History ? 12/13/1942






 Get it right most countries in western Europe were over run by the German war machine and surrendered. leaving Great Britain to pick up the pieces and organise the resistance in many western European nations. Many Poles escaped to Britain and organised Polish battalions and air arms of their own. It was only when America was forced into the war by the attack on pearl Harbour that we stood a chance of beating the axis powers.

 By far the greatest number of Jews murdered were by the Islamic SS brigades under the control of the grand mufti, who became camp guards because they were abject cowards.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There are bad people in every society.  But, what does what the Turks did have to do with the Palestinians?



*   ISLAM of course*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Again, more countries in Europe fought against the Axis Powers than joined them_...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> You and your opposites on this question merely differ pertaining to scope and scale.
> 
> 
> Again, nobody is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..._I suspect most Europeans would have done the same if they had not been occupied:_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2,000 years of European pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres - virtually all of it _long_ before the advent of Fascism, suggest a different conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what the 2.000 years of pograms  have to do with my hypothesis that Nazi occupied countries would have behaved like Italy and Italians had they been free to do so.
Click to expand...





 Because JEW HATRED in Europe was instutionalised and widespread among the population. That is why the Germans had very little problems in getting the Jews rounded up and deported with the help of the occupied inhabitants of the defeated countries. Even after WW2 and the knowledge of the death camps Great Britain was still engaging in ANTI SEMITISM and JEW HATRED and caused the deaths of thousands of Jews fleeing Europe to the land they had been promised. Right up until 1947 the British stopped Jews from entering Palestine while allowing arab muslims to flood the area.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

And according to the San Remo Mandate the British were* obliged* to facilitate the Jews settling in the Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the 2.000 years of pograms  have to do with my hypothesis that Nazi occupied countries would have behaved like Italy and Italians had they been free to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do.
> 
> You're just being obtuse.
> 
> But I will spell it out for you, nonetheless.
> 
> The 2000 years of pogroms, persecutions, expulsions and massacres of Jews, correlate to the mindset of the Europeans of those times, and the undercurrent of anti-Semitism still highly extant and operative across the European continent at the time of the Holocaust.
> 
> Translation: Any collection of peoples whose culture and traditions and society are deeply immersed in a centuries-old persecution of another, are far more likely, as a people, to support and participate in any attempt to actually exterminate the target population.
> 
> And, if you cannot see that correlation, then I doubt that anything else that I say in that regard will prove efficacious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.
Click to expand...





 Don't you, well if the civil rights laws were repealed and the old race laws reinstated you would see an upsurge in attacks on blacks. But you miss the point that 2000 years of state sanctioned hatred for the Jews is a hard thing to abolish overnight. The muslims have only been practising it for 1400 years and they have it as a religious command so it will be there when the Sun goes cold.  Just look at your own all consuming hatred for the Jews and explain why you feel that way ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that means that you believe that white Americans, because of the history, could easily return to lynching blacks.  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of persecution only lasted 200-400 years, not 2000.
> 
> And it was not based on the idea that Blacks had killed the Son of God, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks controlled Commerce and Banking, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks kept to themselves and were therefore suspect, nor was it based upon the idea that Blacks were an insidious parasitical drain upon Western civilization, as the Jews had unfairly been attributed as being.
> 
> Apples and oranges, and a Major League -caliber faux analogy.
> 
> Our colleague's original observation about long-running, deep-running anti-Semitism in Europe is a well-documented and incontrovertible and unassailable fact, despite your protestations to the contrary, and her observation stands - having sufficient merit and substance to do so regardless of your attempted (and failed) assault on its veracity.
> 
> End of seqeuence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if something lasts 400-500 years it is different from lasting 2,000 years.  I see.
Click to expand...





 No you don't see, that is the problem. Imagine facing the hatred you spew out for the Jews every day of your life for no other reason than you are alive. That is your all consuming hate of the Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> And according to the San Remo Mandate the British were* obliged* to facilitate the Jews settling in the Palestine.



And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.

An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to the San Remo Mandate the British were* obliged* to facilitate the Jews settling in the Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
Click to expand...


Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to the San Remo Mandate the British were* obliged* to facilitate the Jews settling in the Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
Click to expand...


Indeed, it has been said many times but it is not true.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it has been said many times but it is not true.
Click to expand...


Of course it is true.  Why deny what happened, unless you want it not to be so.


----------



## Kondor3

Both sides can argue their Starting Position with some considerable merit.

Which, in the end, gets us nowhere.

In the Real World, the situation is what it is.

And, when both sides dig in their heels and will not compromise in the practical world...

That leaves very little to do but deal with Reality rather than what might have been.

The reality of the situation is, that Israel has the upper hand, and will continue to hold it.

A high-end straight flush, as opposed to the pair of deuces that the Palestinians are holding.

Like fools, the Palestinians keep 'kicking' the bet with that pair of deuces, rather than simply 'calling'.

And, of course, the Israelis, with their vastly superior hand, keep 'kicking' the pot again.

And, of course, the Israelis have a far bigger stack of chips to play with, as well.

As the scattered collection of Palestinian-held lands continues to rapidly evaporate and shrink towards oblivion, until the Palestinians are damned-near standing on top of each others' shoulders...

The Palestinians are rapidly running out of chips, but they're so deep into this betting sequence that it's like an addiction... they know, intellectually, that they're going to lose, but, subconsciously, they can't help themselves, and keep bumping the pot...

Time to simply 'call' the bet, next round, cut their losses, and walk away from the table with at least a few chips left to their name...

They could have saved themselves the time and trouble, and a shitload of chips, but their inexperience and political immaturity and lack of common-sense and cohesion have cost them dearly...

They need someone sane, to arise as a leader, to take them away from all this, and lead them into some other land that will have them, as new and valued members of a different society...

I'm sure that the entire world - and even the Jews - would be more than happy to kick in a few score billions of dollars, to see them safely shifted elsewhere, and set up with enough to make a new and good start - to build new and far happier lives - something akin to Compensation, or Wargeld...

There is no way that the Palestinians walk away from the poker table, victorious - no way.

Compromise, or Population Transfer coupled with Compensation - are the only practical solutions to their desperate, self-inflicted plight.

The only alternative is that the Palestinians will lose everything - a state of affairs that is rapidly approaching on the timeline for all of this.

Losers, in a lost cause, beating a dead horse, to no practical and useful purpose.

It's over.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Excellent viewpoint Kondor.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it has been said many times but it is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is true.  Why deny what happened, unless you want it not to be so.
Click to expand...


I don't deny what happened. What happened was not what was supposed to be. It is Israel that denies what happened.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it has been said many times but it is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is true.  Why deny what happened, unless you want it not to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't deny what happened. What happened was not what was supposed to be. It is Israel that denies what happened.
Click to expand...


What do you mean it was not what was supposed to be?


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to the San Remo Mandate the British were* obliged* to facilitate the Jews settling in the Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
Click to expand...


The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.   

Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
Click to expand...


The land was reconstituted as a home for the Jews recognizing their pre-existing right to that land.  The arabs were given the same rights in other countries.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Both sides can argue their Starting Position with some considerable merit.
> 
> Which, in the end, gets us nowhere.
> 
> In the Real World, the situation is what it is.
> 
> And, when both sides dig in their heels and will not compromise in the practical world...
> 
> That leaves very little to do but deal with Reality rather than what might have been.
> 
> The reality of the situation is, that Israel has the upper hand, and will continue to hold it.
> 
> A high-end straight flush, as opposed to the pair of deuces that the Palestinians are holding.
> 
> Like fools, the Palestinians keep 'kicking' the bet with that pair of deuces, rather than simply 'calling'.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis, with their vastly superior hand, keep 'kicking' the pot again.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis have a far bigger stack of chips to play with, as well.
> 
> As the scattered collection of Palestinian-held lands continues to rapidly evaporate and shrink towards oblivion, until the Palestinians are damned-near standing on top of each others' shoulders...
> 
> The Palestinians are rapidly running out of chips, but they're so deep into this betting sequence that it's like an addiction... they know, intellectually, that they're going to lose, but, subconsciously, they can't help themselves, and keep bumping the pot...
> 
> Time to simply 'call' the bet, next round, cut their losses, and walk away from the table with at least a few chips left to their name...
> 
> They could have saved themselves the time and trouble, and a shitload of chips, but their inexperience and political immaturity and lack of common-sense and cohesion have cost them dearly...
> 
> They need someone sane, to arise as a leader, to take them away from all this, and lead them into some other land that will have them, as new and valued members of a different society...
> 
> I'm sure that the entire world - and even the Jews - would be more than happy to kick in a few score billions of dollars, to see them safely shifted elsewhere, and set up with enough to make a new and good start - to build new and far happier lives - something akin to Compensation, or Wargeld...
> 
> There is no way that the Palestinians walk away from the poker table, victorious - no way.
> 
> Compromise, or Population Transfer coupled with Compensation - are the only practical solutions to their desperate, self-inflicted plight.
> 
> The only alternative is that the Palestinians will lose everything - a state of affairs that is rapidly approaching on the timeline for all of this.
> 
> Losers, in a lost cause, beating a dead horse, to no practical and useful purpose.
> 
> It's over.



Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.

The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.

From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.

Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land was reconstituted as a home for the Jews recognizing their pre-existing right to that land.  The arabs were given the same rights in other countries.
Click to expand...


Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .

What it says is:

" in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land was reconstituted as a home for the Jews recognizing their pre-existing right to that land.  The arabs were given the same rights in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
Click to expand...



And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
Click to expand...


But there is a Jewish State now, and it's called Israel. And the same country that assigned the Mandate also recognized Israel's declaration of independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was reconstituted as a home for the Jews recognizing their pre-existing right to that land.  The arabs were given the same rights in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
Click to expand...


How about kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes for starters?


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was reconstituted as a home for the Jews recognizing their pre-existing right to that land.  The arabs were given the same rights in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
Click to expand...



Comedian I see.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comedian I see.
Click to expand...


You're stuck for a response.  Thought so.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes for starters?
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## SAYIT

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides can argue their Starting Position with some considerable merit.
> 
> Which, in the end, gets us nowhere.
> 
> In the Real World, the situation is what it is.
> 
> And, when both sides dig in their heels and will not compromise in the practical world...
> 
> That leaves very little to do but deal with Reality rather than what might have been.
> 
> The reality of the situation is, that Israel has the upper hand, and will continue to hold it.
> 
> A high-end straight flush, as opposed to the pair of deuces that the Palestinians are holding.
> 
> Like fools, the Palestinians keep 'kicking' the bet with that pair of deuces, rather than simply 'calling'.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis, with their vastly superior hand, keep 'kicking' the pot again.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis have a far bigger stack of chips to play with, as well.
> 
> As the scattered collection of Palestinian-held lands continues to rapidly evaporate and shrink towards oblivion, until the Palestinians are damned-near standing on top of each others' shoulders...
> 
> The Palestinians are rapidly running out of chips, but they're so deep into this betting sequence that it's like an addiction... they know, intellectually, that they're going to lose, but, subconsciously, they can't help themselves, and keep bumping the pot...
> 
> Time to simply 'call' the bet, next round, cut their losses, and walk away from the table with at least a few chips left to their name...
> 
> They could have saved themselves the time and trouble, and a shitload of chips, but their inexperience and political immaturity and lack of common-sense and cohesion have cost them dearly...
> 
> They need someone sane, to arise as a leader, to take them away from all this, and lead them into some other land that will have them, as new and valued members of a different society...
> 
> I'm sure that the entire world - and even the Jews - would be more than happy to kick in a few score billions of dollars, to see them safely shifted elsewhere, and set up with enough to make a new and good start - to build new and far happier lives - something akin to Compensation, or Wargeld...
> 
> There is no way that the Palestinians walk away from the poker table, victorious - no way.
> 
> Compromise, or Population Transfer coupled with Compensation - are the only practical solutions to their desperate, self-inflicted plight.
> 
> The only alternative is that the Palestinians will lose everything - a state of affairs that is rapidly approaching on the timeline for all of this.
> 
> Losers, in a lost cause, beating a dead horse, to no practical and useful purpose.
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
Click to expand...


In the meantime a few more generations of Palestinians will wallow in that self-imposed plight, whining about Israel's policies while hoping that someday Israel may grant them citizenship. Not the smartest path to a bright future. As Kondor notes, what is available to them is shrinking as we post. They may realize the folly of their ways, accept some compromise, and then become an independent territory of a neighboring Arab State like Jordan. Israel will not commit demographic suicide and to suggest the Palestinians continue to kick the bet with their "pair of deuces" while Israel is showing aces is not just silliness, it's criminal.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state...
Click to expand...

Interpretation A: yours - a Jewish home - embedded within a nonexistent polity.

Interpretation B: theirs - a Jewish *NATIONAL* home - carved from the unincorporated region known loosely as Palestine.







It's an old argument.

Balfour (_the foundation and basis for everything that followed_) used the phrase 'Jewish *NATIONAL* home', not 'Jewish home'.

*NATIONAL*... as in '*NATION*'...!!!

Making Interpretation B at _least_ as valid as A; all bullshit weasel-like clarifications to the contrary notwithstanding.

Interpretation B has the added merit of having been brought to Reality by the 'side' that was more politically savvy and better-prepared, and now maintained by the will and determination of most of the Jews of the world, and the Israelis in particular.

The Jews changed their destiny by making Interpretation B the operative one in the Real World.



> "..._The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine_..."


Insignificant and immaterial, for those subscribing to Interpretation B.

The absence of such mention may easily and meritoriously be set aside as an implicit assumption that these others would find their own destinies in those portions of Old Palestine which were NOT allocated to be part of the new Jewish NATIONAL homeland.

A delightfully easy work-around, for those who wish to use it.



> "..._The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE_..."


True.

Then again, neither Balfour nor its successor Intentions articulated in the Mandate had envisioned either (1) the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948, as the Palestinians ran away and abandoned their lands, nor (2) repeated attacks by both neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians themselves, which served to abandon and set aside those rights, for all _practical_ purposes, by not accepting the LON and UN proposals for a peaceful Partition, and forcing the Jews of Old Palestine to 'tweak' their implementation of the UN Proposal, for safety's sake, and conveniently supplying the Jews with the very rationale and basis and excuse they needed for undertaking that tweaking.

Dumbass Palestinians.

When you shoot at people, you must expect return fire.

When you start the shooting, and then lose, you cannot expect much sympathy.

Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interpretation A: yours - a Jewish home - embedded within a nonexistent polity.
> 
> Interpretation B: theirs - a Jewish *NATIONAL* home - carved from the unincorporated region known loosely as Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an old argument.
> 
> Balfour (_the foundation and basis for everything that followed_) used the phrase 'Jewish *NATIONAL* home', not 'Jewish home'.
> 
> *NATIONAL*... as in '*NATION*'...!!!
> 
> Making Interpretation B at _least_ as valid as A; all bullshit weasel-like clarifications to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Interpretation B has the added merit of having been brought to Reality by the 'side' that was more politically savvy and better-prepared, and now maintained by the will and determination of most of the Jews of the world, and the Israelis in particular.
> 
> The Jews changed their destiny by making Interpretation B the operative one in the Real World.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insignificant and immaterial, for those subscribing to Interpretation B.
> 
> The absence of such mention may easily and meritoriously be set aside as an implicit assumption that these others would find their own destinies in those portions of Old Palestine which were NOT allocated to be part of the new Jewish NATIONAL homeland.
> 
> An easy work-around, for those who wish to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Then again, neither Balfour nor its successor Intentions articulated in the Mandate had envisioned either (1) the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948, as the Palestinians ran away and abandoned their lands, nor (2) repeated attacks by both neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians themselves, which served to abandon and set aside those rights, for all _practical_ purposes, by not accepting the LON and UN proposals for a peaceful Partition, and forcing the Jews of Old Palestine to 'tweak' their implementation of the UN Proposal, for safety's sake, and conveniently supplying the Jews with the very rationale and basis and excuse they needed for undertaking that tweaking.
> 
> When you shoot at people, you must expect return fire.
> 
> When you start the shooting, and then lose, you cannot expect much sympathy.
> 
> Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.
Click to expand...


Palestine was never Britain's to give away.

And they didn't.


----------



## montelatici

i Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.

You don't think Irgun and Haganah terrorists killing Christian and Muslim women and children while ethnically cleansing Arab villages might have cause Palestinians to leave? You think it was self-inflicted?  

Unbelievable. it's like you people have been living in a separate reality.  This is such a biased forum, I've seen nothing like it.  It is like Stormfront with an opposite point of view.


----------



## montelatici

By the way Kondor you are probably the most partisan hack I have dealt with.  You compare to the famous Sciroco on another forum.  He expresses the same point of view and is the forum's laughingstock.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> i Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.
> 
> You don't think Irgun and Haganah terrorists killing Christian and Muslim women and children while ethnically cleansing Arab villages might have cause Palestinians to leave? You think it was self-inflicted?
> 
> Unbelievable. it's like you people have been living in a separate reality.  This is such a biased forum, I've seen nothing like it.  It is like Stormfront with an opposite point of view.



"Killing Christian and Muslim women and children"--That is a strawman argument.  They weren't killed deliberately.  Jews aren't Nazis.  It was a war.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> i Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.
> 
> You don't think Irgun and Haganah terrorists killing Christian and Muslim women and children while ethnically cleansing Arab villages might have cause Palestinians to leave? You think it was self-inflicted?


That, too, is an old argument.

Jewish militancy was a reaction of Arab militancy, not the other way around.

We can piss and moan for days about Arab attacks upon Jewish residents and immigrants in the years and decades and centuries prior to 1948, but to what end?

We can also nit-pick over how many Arabs were driven out, versus the huge numbers of Arabs who were instructed by Arab leadership to abandon their homes and get out of the way of the coming Arab invasion forces.

I seriously doubt that any such comparison of numbers - how many were driven out versus how many skeddadled on their own or were told to leave and thus complied - will work well in your favor.



> _...Unbelievable. it's like you people have been living in a separate reality.  This is such a biased forum, I've seen nothing like it..._


Yes.

Indeed.

Pro-Israel supporters do, indeed, live in a Reality that differs from that of pro-Palestinian supporters.

The former, however, have an advantage over the latter, in that their Reality is actually operative in the universe which we jointly inhabit.



> _It is like Stormfront with an opposite point of view._


Thank you for the gratuitous Godwin-ism... always good to get one of those out of the way, early in the day.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> By the way Kondor you are probably the most partisan hack I have dealt with.  You compare to the famous Sciroco on another forum.  He expresses the same point of view and is the forum's laughingstock.


Thank you for your feedback.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state...
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation A: yours - a Jewish home - embedded within a nonexistent polity.
> 
> Interpretation B: theirs - a Jewish *NATIONAL* home - carved from the unincorporated region known loosely as Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an old argument.
> 
> Balfour (_the foundation and basis for everything that followed_) used the phrase 'Jewish *NATIONAL* home', not 'Jewish home'.
> 
> *NATIONAL*... as in '*NATION*'...!!!
> 
> Making Interpretation B at _least_ as valid as A; all bullshit weasel-like clarifications to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Interpretation B has the added merit of having been brought to Reality by the 'side' that was more politically savvy and better-prepared, and now maintained by the will and determination of most of the Jews of the world, and the Israelis in particular.
> 
> The Jews changed their destiny by making Interpretation B the operative one in the Real World.
> 
> 
> Insignificant and immaterial, for those subscribing to Interpretation B.
> 
> The absence of such mention may easily and meritoriously be set aside as an implicit assumption that these others would find their own destinies in those portions of Old Palestine which were NOT allocated to be part of the new Jewish NATIONAL homeland.
> 
> An easy work-around, for those who wish to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Then again, neither Balfour nor its successor Intentions articulated in the Mandate had envisioned either (1) the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948, as the Palestinians ran away and abandoned their lands, nor (2) repeated attacks by both neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians themselves, which served to abandon and set aside those rights, for all _practical_ purposes, by not accepting the LON and UN proposals for a peaceful Partition, and forcing the Jews of Old Palestine to 'tweak' their implementation of the UN Proposal, for safety's sake, and conveniently supplying the Jews with the very rationale and basis and excuse they needed for undertaking that tweaking.
> 
> When you shoot at people, you must expect return fire.
> 
> When you start the shooting, and then lose, you cannot expect much sympathy.
> 
> Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was never Britain's to give away.
> 
> And they didn't.
Click to expand...

That, too, is an old argument.

One which you lost in 1948.

You (metaphorically speaking, the Palestinians) should have carved-off your own slice, and been content with that, back then, while you still had the chance.

You chose poorly, and are now suffering the consequences, with no prospect of a Do-Over in sight.

None of that old shit matters any longer.

It's over.


----------



## montelatici

SAYIT said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides can argue their Starting Position with some considerable merit.
> 
> Which, in the end, gets us nowhere.
> 
> In the Real World, the situation is what it is.
> 
> And, when both sides dig in their heels and will not compromise in the practical world...
> 
> That leaves very little to do but deal with Reality rather than what might have been.
> 
> The reality of the situation is, that Israel has the upper hand, and will continue to hold it.
> 
> A high-end straight flush, as opposed to the pair of deuces that the Palestinians are holding.
> 
> Like fools, the Palestinians keep 'kicking' the bet with that pair of deuces, rather than simply 'calling'.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis, with their vastly superior hand, keep 'kicking' the pot again.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis have a far bigger stack of chips to play with, as well.
> 
> As the scattered collection of Palestinian-held lands continues to rapidly evaporate and shrink towards oblivion, until the Palestinians are damned-near standing on top of each others' shoulders...
> 
> The Palestinians are rapidly running out of chips, but they're so deep into this betting sequence that it's like an addiction... they know, intellectually, that they're going to lose, but, subconsciously, they can't help themselves, and keep bumping the pot...
> 
> Time to simply 'call' the bet, next round, cut their losses, and walk away from the table with at least a few chips left to their name...
> 
> They could have saved themselves the time and trouble, and a shitload of chips, but their inexperience and political immaturity and lack of common-sense and cohesion have cost them dearly...
> 
> They need someone sane, to arise as a leader, to take them away from all this, and lead them into some other land that will have them, as new and valued members of a different society...
> 
> I'm sure that the entire world - and even the Jews - would be more than happy to kick in a few score billions of dollars, to see them safely shifted elsewhere, and set up with enough to make a new and good start - to build new and far happier lives - something akin to Compensation, or Wargeld...
> 
> There is no way that the Palestinians walk away from the poker table, victorious - no way.
> 
> Compromise, or Population Transfer coupled with Compensation - are the only practical solutions to their desperate, self-inflicted plight.
> 
> The only alternative is that the Palestinians will lose everything - a state of affairs that is rapidly approaching on the timeline for all of this.
> 
> Losers, in a lost cause, beating a dead horse, to no practical and useful purpose.
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the meantime a few more generations of Palestinians will wallow in that self-imposed plight, whining about Israel's policies while hoping that someday Israel may grant them citizenship. Not the smartest path to a bright future. As Kondor notes, what is available to them is shrinking as we post. They may realize the folly of their ways, accept some compromise, and then become an independent territory of a neighboring Arab State like Jordan. Israel will not commit demographic suicide and to suggest the Palestinians continue to kick the bet with their "pair of deuces" while Israel is showing aces is not just silliness, it's criminal.
Click to expand...


Israel will have little choice.  Even the U.S. eventually abandoned its support for South Africa which at the time was strategically more important.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Kondor you are probably the most partisan hack I have dealt with.  You compare to the famous Sciroco on another forum.  He expresses the same point of view and is the forum's laughingstock.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
Click to expand...


Kondor is like one of those Danish or Dutch people who save Jews during the Holocaust.  A righteous Gentile.


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comedian I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stuck for a response.  Thought so.
Click to expand...


You were serious.  The Israelis murdered thousands of civilian Christians and Muslims, destroyed their towns and villages, poisoned their wells drove them out of Palestine. And you ask what civil rights were prejudiced?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comedian I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck for a response.  Thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were serious.  The Israelis murdered thousands of civilian Christians and Muslims, destroyed their towns and villages, poisoned their wells drove them out of Palestine. And you ask what civil rights were prejudiced?
Click to expand...


Can you give a link?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
Click to expand...




 And the Palestine that is mentioned is what is now Lebanon, Syria, trans Jordan and Israel. And you are wrong on your premise that the mandate only states Christians and muslims as it also gives the same rights to the Jews.  So you see little boy when the mandate created Syria from the land of Palestine and then created trans Jordan it defined the rights of the Jews in those new nations under British control. Neither became an independent state until after Israel was recognised and were both still part of the British and French mandate of Palestine.  Have you read the full terms of the mandate and seen exactly what it contains.
 Things like this

 or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and 

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; 

 Article 2. 

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

Article 5. 





The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power. 

(Britain then gave Transjordanian Palestine- about 70% of Palestine- to King Abdullah and called it Transjordan. It is now called Jordan. This is not to say that that the Jews were promised that they could settle in all of Palestine. Palestine was a loose regional term in those days and even included Damascus. See article 25 and chapter 11 on the Weizmann-Faisal agreement)

Article 6. 

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 

 (destroys your European invasion theory and islamonazi lies)

 Article 7. 

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine

Article 25. 

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine

(Palestine originally included land in what is now Jordan)

as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, 

(Jewish immigration east of the Jordan might be put on hold if the Mandate authorities thought it inapplicable.) 

and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. 

The San Remo agreement 1920

 So you see the mandate says that Jordan is part of Palestine and that it was given to the hashemites illegally


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides can argue their Starting Position with some considerable merit.
> 
> Which, in the end, gets us nowhere.
> 
> In the Real World, the situation is what it is.
> 
> And, when both sides dig in their heels and will not compromise in the practical world...
> 
> That leaves very little to do but deal with Reality rather than what might have been.
> 
> The reality of the situation is, that Israel has the upper hand, and will continue to hold it.
> 
> A high-end straight flush, as opposed to the pair of deuces that the Palestinians are holding.
> 
> Like fools, the Palestinians keep 'kicking' the bet with that pair of deuces, rather than simply 'calling'.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis, with their vastly superior hand, keep 'kicking' the pot again.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis have a far bigger stack of chips to play with, as well.
> 
> As the scattered collection of Palestinian-held lands continues to rapidly evaporate and shrink towards oblivion, until the Palestinians are damned-near standing on top of each others' shoulders...
> 
> The Palestinians are rapidly running out of chips, but they're so deep into this betting sequence that it's like an addiction... they know, intellectually, that they're going to lose, but, subconsciously, they can't help themselves, and keep bumping the pot...
> 
> Time to simply 'call' the bet, next round, cut their losses, and walk away from the table with at least a few chips left to their name...
> 
> They could have saved themselves the time and trouble, and a shitload of chips, but their inexperience and political immaturity and lack of common-sense and cohesion have cost them dearly...
> 
> They need someone sane, to arise as a leader, to take them away from all this, and lead them into some other land that will have them, as new and valued members of a different society...
> 
> I'm sure that the entire world - and even the Jews - would be more than happy to kick in a few score billions of dollars, to see them safely shifted elsewhere, and set up with enough to make a new and good start - to build new and far happier lives - something akin to Compensation, or Wargeld...
> 
> There is no way that the Palestinians walk away from the poker table, victorious - no way.
> 
> Compromise, or Population Transfer coupled with Compensation - are the only practical solutions to their desperate, self-inflicted plight.
> 
> The only alternative is that the Palestinians will lose everything - a state of affairs that is rapidly approaching on the timeline for all of this.
> 
> Losers, in a lost cause, beating a dead horse, to no practical and useful purpose.
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
Click to expand...




 The US would not have a say in the matter, just look at the break up of Yugoslavia, Sudan and Darfur


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
Click to expand...





 The mandate actually says

*Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;* 

 So it does say a Jewish state or NATIONAL HOME. and trans Jordan is mentioned in the mandate as being part of this NATIONAL HOME.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The land was reconstituted as a home for the Jews recognizing their pre-existing right to that land.  The arabs were given the same rights in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
Click to expand...






 Why do you always remove the part that gives the Jews RIGHTS in the whole of the M.E ?  Is it because you hate the Jews so much ?


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides can argue their Starting Position with some considerable merit.
> 
> Which, in the end, gets us nowhere.
> 
> In the Real World, the situation is what it is.
> 
> And, when both sides dig in their heels and will not compromise in the practical world...
> 
> That leaves very little to do but deal with Reality rather than what might have been.
> 
> The reality of the situation is, that Israel has the upper hand, and will continue to hold it.
> 
> A high-end straight flush, as opposed to the pair of deuces that the Palestinians are holding.
> 
> Like fools, the Palestinians keep 'kicking' the bet with that pair of deuces, rather than simply 'calling'.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis, with their vastly superior hand, keep 'kicking' the pot again.
> 
> And, of course, the Israelis have a far bigger stack of chips to play with, as well.
> 
> As the scattered collection of Palestinian-held lands continues to rapidly evaporate and shrink towards oblivion, until the Palestinians are damned-near standing on top of each others' shoulders...
> 
> The Palestinians are rapidly running out of chips, but they're so deep into this betting sequence that it's like an addiction... they know, intellectually, that they're going to lose, but, subconsciously, they can't help themselves, and keep bumping the pot...
> 
> Time to simply 'call' the bet, next round, cut their losses, and walk away from the table with at least a few chips left to their name...
> 
> They could have saved themselves the time and trouble, and a shitload of chips, but their inexperience and political immaturity and lack of common-sense and cohesion have cost them dearly...
> 
> They need someone sane, to arise as a leader, to take them away from all this, and lead them into some other land that will have them, as new and valued members of a different society...
> 
> I'm sure that the entire world - and even the Jews - would be more than happy to kick in a few score billions of dollars, to see them safely shifted elsewhere, and set up with enough to make a new and good start - to build new and far happier lives - something akin to Compensation, or Wargeld...
> 
> There is no way that the Palestinians walk away from the poker table, victorious - no way.
> 
> Compromise, or Population Transfer coupled with Compensation - are the only practical solutions to their desperate, self-inflicted plight.
> 
> The only alternative is that the Palestinians will lose everything - a state of affairs that is rapidly approaching on the timeline for all of this.
> 
> Losers, in a lost cause, beating a dead horse, to no practical and useful purpose.
> 
> It's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US would not have a say in the matter, just look at the break up of Yugoslavia, Sudan and Darfur
Click to expand...


Neither Yugoslavia or Sudan was receiving massive U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Israel would be sanctioned to bankruptcy if it carried out ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes for starters?
Click to expand...




 Yes were did the arabs get of on doing that when they knew it was against the UN charter and the Mandate.............


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Comedian I see.
Click to expand...





Unable to answer the simple question I see. Cant find any evidence of any prejudice the non Jews just the Jews ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state...
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation A: yours - a Jewish home - embedded within a nonexistent polity.
> 
> Interpretation B: theirs - a Jewish *NATIONAL* home - carved from the unincorporated region known loosely as Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an old argument.
> 
> Balfour (_the foundation and basis for everything that followed_) used the phrase 'Jewish *NATIONAL* home', not 'Jewish home'.
> 
> *NATIONAL*... as in '*NATION*'...!!!
> 
> Making Interpretation B at _least_ as valid as A; all bullshit weasel-like clarifications to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Interpretation B has the added merit of having been brought to Reality by the 'side' that was more politically savvy and better-prepared, and now maintained by the will and determination of most of the Jews of the world, and the Israelis in particular.
> 
> The Jews changed their destiny by making Interpretation B the operative one in the Real World.
> 
> 
> Insignificant and immaterial, for those subscribing to Interpretation B.
> 
> The absence of such mention may easily and meritoriously be set aside as an implicit assumption that these others would find their own destinies in those portions of Old Palestine which were NOT allocated to be part of the new Jewish NATIONAL homeland.
> 
> An easy work-around, for those who wish to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Then again, neither Balfour nor its successor Intentions articulated in the Mandate had envisioned either (1) the Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948, as the Palestinians ran away and abandoned their lands, nor (2) repeated attacks by both neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians themselves, which served to abandon and set aside those rights, for all _practical_ purposes, by not accepting the LON and UN proposals for a peaceful Partition, and forcing the Jews of Old Palestine to 'tweak' their implementation of the UN Proposal, for safety's sake, and conveniently supplying the Jews with the very rationale and basis and excuse they needed for undertaking that tweaking.
> 
> When you shoot at people, you must expect return fire.
> 
> When you start the shooting, and then lose, you cannot expect much sympathy.
> 
> Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was never Britain's to give away.
> 
> And they didn't.
Click to expand...





 THEY DID AS SHOWN HERE

 Article 5. 





The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that *no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power. *




(Britain then gave Transjordanian Palestine- about 70% of Palestine- to King Abdullah and called it Transjordan. It is now called Jordan. This is not to say that that the Jews were promised that they could settle in all of Palestine. Palestine was a loose regional term in those days and even included Damascus. See article 25 and chapter 11 on the Weizmann-Faisal agreement)


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> i Thus, the Muslim-Arab Palestinians find themselves in one helluva self-inflicted dilemma.
> 
> You don't think Irgun and Haganah terrorists killing Christian and Muslim women and children while ethnically cleansing Arab villages might have cause Palestinians to leave? You think it was self-inflicted?
> 
> Unbelievable. it's like you people have been living in a separate reality.  This is such a biased forum, I've seen nothing like it.  It is like Stormfront with an opposite point of view.






Not when there are transcripts of the arab armies radio announcements asking the muslims to leave so that the armies will not be hindered in the genocide of the Jews. They lost and so the arab muslims lost their homes for ever, get over it and demand that Saudi do something to relieve the hardships faced by the refugees.


----------



## MrMax

Arabs attacked and lost. 

Moral of the story? Next time they should try another tactic rather than simply attacking.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime a few more generations of Palestinians will wallow in that self-imposed plight, whining about Israel's policies while hoping that someday Israel may grant them citizenship. Not the smartest path to a bright future. As Kondor notes, what is available to them is shrinking as we post. They may realize the folly of their ways, accept some compromise, and then become an independent territory of a neighboring Arab State like Jordan. Israel will not commit demographic suicide and to suggest the Palestinians continue to kick the bet with their "pair of deuces" while Israel is showing aces is not just silliness, it's criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel will have little choice.  Even the U.S. eventually abandoned its support for South Africa which at the time was strategically more important.
Click to expand...





 YOU LOST IN 1948, 1967 and again in 1973. Israel has all the choices, it is the arab muslims that are running out of choices. Even the other arabs are turning their backs on the Palestinians and once Syria loses to an arab winter like Egypt has it only leaves iran.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comedian I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck for a response.  Thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were serious.  The Israelis murdered thousands of civilian Christians and Muslims, destroyed their towns and villages, poisoned their wells drove them out of Palestine. And you ask what civil rights were prejudiced?
Click to expand...




 Evidence from a non partisan palestinian source that shows thousands murdered by the Israelis ( this means post 1949 as that was when Israel became a Nation, prior to this it was fighting a war against arab colonists and land thieves.)


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> And according to the San Remo Mandate the British were* obliged* to facilitate the Jews settling in the Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it was also to assist the immigrants in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. These citizens would be on equal footing with the other Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> An exclusive Jewish state was not a part of the plan.
Click to expand...


San Remo's Mandate: Israel's 'Magna Carta' - Inside Israel - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
San Remo Resolution - Council on Foreign Relations


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US would not have a say in the matter, just look at the break up of Yugoslavia, Sudan and Darfur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither Yugoslavia or Sudan was receiving massive U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Israel would be sanctioned to bankruptcy if it carried out ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
Click to expand...





 IRRELEVANT to the subject matter population transfer has taken place in other parts of the world with not a peep out of any world power. 
 Why hasn't the P.A been sanctioned to bankruptcy for its ethnic cleansing and genocide of Christians. I have given you many examples from a Christian website to show the extent of the problem.


----------



## SAYIT

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good points, but I think that we are past the point where there is any possibility of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.  The Israelis in power don't want one and there are too many Jews now living in what could have been a sovereign Palestinian state. They cannot be moved out.
> 
> The Palestinians are slowly coming the realization that a sovereign Palestinian state is not longer a viable option.
> 
> From the Palestinian point of view, the best thing they can do is sit tight, peacefully protest their plight as people living under the control of Israel without any rights of a citizen of Israel and allow demographics to do what they will.  It may be in a generation or two, but non-Jews will become the majority in the lands controlled by Israel, at which point it will become untenable for the Israelis to withhold rights and citizenship to the non-Jews under their control.
> 
> Population transfer will not happen.  Not even the U.S. would condone such an action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US would not have a say in the matter, just look at the break up of Yugoslavia, Sudan and Darfur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither Yugoslavia or Sudan was receiving massive U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Israel would be sanctioned to bankruptcy if it carried out ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
Click to expand...


Your dream is based on a false premise. Israeli "controlled" lands are not Israel and do not require Israeli citizenship for the inhabitants who can, with a bit of work, establish a "long desired" national home of their own. They just can't have Israel.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was to be a Jewish state.  The Arabs were given their own countries.  You know that and it has been told to you many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestine that is mentioned is what is now Lebanon, Syria, trans Jordan and Israel. And you are wrong on your premise that the mandate only states Christians and muslims as it also gives the same rights to the Jews.  So you see little boy when the mandate created Syria from the land of Palestine and then created trans Jordan it defined the rights of the Jews in those new nations under British control. Neither became an independent state until after Israel was recognised and were both still part of the British and French mandate of Palestine.  Have you read the full terms of the mandate and seen exactly what it contains.
> Things like this
> 
> or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
> 
> Article 2.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> Article 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> (Britain then gave Transjordanian Palestine- about 70% of Palestine- to King Abdullah and called it Transjordan. It is now called Jordan. This is not to say that that the Jews were promised that they could settle in all of Palestine. Palestine was a loose regional term in those days and even included Damascus. See article 25 and chapter 11 on the Weizmann-Faisal agreement)
> 
> Article 6.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> (destroys your European invasion theory and islamonazi lies)
> 
> Article 7.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine
> 
> Article 25.
> 
> In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine
> 
> (Palestine originally included land in what is now Jordan)
> 
> as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions,
> 
> (Jewish immigration east of the Jordan might be put on hold if the Mandate authorities thought it inapplicable.)
> 
> and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
> 
> The San Remo agreement 1920
> 
> So you see the mandate says that Jordan is part of Palestine and that it was given to the hashemites illegally
Click to expand...


1.  The Palestine that was mentioned did not include anything but Palestine.  Syria and Lebanon were the subject of the French Mandate.

2.  _(destroys your European invasion theory and islamonazi lies)_ Were the Jews not from Europe?  Were they from Mars?  It really doesn't matter to the indigenous people that a European country authorizes immigration of Europeans, it is still an invasion.  Do you think the native americans were any less concerned about the arrival of the Europeans because the British and Spanish crowns authorized the settlement by Europeans.  It was an invasion.

3. _(Palestine originally included land in what is now Jordan)_


Jordan was included in the unsigned  draft of the Palestine Mandate for eight months, from July 1920 to March 1921 when Trans-Jordan was given to the Hashemites.  The League of Nations gave  the mandatory responsibility  only in July 1922, after Trans-Jordan had already been transferred. (Note the date of signing it is in black and white). 

Prince Abdullah was handed the state of Transjordan by the British in 1921

Transjordan and Israel: Examining the Foundations of a Special Relationship - Student Pulse


----------



## Sally

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Kondor you are probably the most partisan hack I have dealt with.  You compare to the famous Sciroco on another forum.  He expresses the same point of view and is the forum's laughingstock.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kondor is like one of those Danish or Dutch people who save Jews during the Holocaust.  A righteous Gentile.
Click to expand...


That is a great comparison, and I think most of the readers realize how intelligent he is.  Meanwhile the other poster sounds like she is doing her term project for some class in her madrassa.  I wonder what grade she will great for all her hard work.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Sally said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor is like one of those Danish or Dutch people who save Jews during the Holocaust.  A righteous Gentile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a great comparison, and I think most of the readers realize how intelligent he is.  Meanwhile the other poster sounds like she is doing her term project for some class in her madrassa.  I wonder what grade she will great for all her hard work.
Click to expand...


Definitely out of his/her league with USMB, as can be shown from time to time with his/her lies, dodging questions, absences from the forum when asked for proof etc.  He/she even mentioned another forum's message board a couple of days ago.


----------



## montelatici

SAYIT said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US would not have a say in the matter, just look at the break up of Yugoslavia, Sudan and Darfur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Yugoslavia or Sudan was receiving massive U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Israel would be sanctioned to bankruptcy if it carried out ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dream is based on a false premise. Israeli "controlled" lands are not Israel and do not require Israeli citizenship for the inhabitants who can, with a bit of work, establish a "long desired" national home of their own. They just can't have Israel.
Click to expand...


The South Africans tried that ploy with the Bantustans.  Doesn't work.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Yugoslavia or Sudan was receiving massive U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Israel would be sanctioned to bankruptcy if it carried out ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dream is based on a false premise. Israeli "controlled" lands are not Israel and do not require Israeli citizenship for the inhabitants who can, with a bit of work, establish a "long desired" national home of their own. They just can't have Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The South Africans tried that ploy with the Bantustans.  Doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Oh, if only montelatici had to spend a year in Soweto to experience real apartheid.


----------



## MHunterB

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it does not say anything about pre-existing rights., have you read the mandate text or are just blabbing BS you have heard? .
> 
> What it says is:
> 
> " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, *it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes for starters?
Click to expand...


The Arab League nations had that policy towards their Jewish citizens:  why do you never take issue with their actions?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate clearly states that there was to be a Jewish Home IN PALESTINE, not a Jewish state. The mandate only discusses Palestine, no other countries are mentioned for the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  The Mandate does require that the rights of the Christians and Muslims not be impinged IN PALESTINE.
> 
> Where do you come off making outrageous claims when the opposite of what you say is written in black and white and presented to you on a platter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Palestine that is mentioned is what is now Lebanon, Syria, trans Jordan and Israel. And you are wrong on your premise that the mandate only states Christians and muslims as it also gives the same rights to the Jews.  So you see little boy when the mandate created Syria from the land of Palestine and then created trans Jordan it defined the rights of the Jews in those new nations under British control. Neither became an independent state until after Israel was recognised and were both still part of the British and French mandate of Palestine.  Have you read the full terms of the mandate and seen exactly what it contains.
> Things like this
> 
> or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
> 
> Article 2.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> Article 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> (Britain then gave Transjordanian Palestine- about 70% of Palestine- to King Abdullah and called it Transjordan. It is now called Jordan. This is not to say that that the Jews were promised that they could settle in all of Palestine. Palestine was a loose regional term in those days and even included Damascus. See article 25 and chapter 11 on the Weizmann-Faisal agreement)
> 
> Article 6.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> (destroys your European invasion theory and islamonazi lies)
> 
> Article 7.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine
> 
> Article 25.
> 
> In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine
> 
> (Palestine originally included land in what is now Jordan)
> 
> as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions,
> 
> (Jewish immigration east of the Jordan might be put on hold if the Mandate authorities thought it inapplicable.)
> 
> and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
> 
> The San Remo agreement 1920
> 
> So you see the mandate says that Jordan is part of Palestine and that it was given to the hashemites illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  The Palestine that was mentioned did not include anything but Palestine.  Syria and Lebanon were the subject of the French Mandate.
> 
> 2.  _(destroys your European invasion theory and islamonazi lies)_ Were the Jews not from Europe?  Were they from Mars?  It really doesn't matter to the indigenous people that a European country authorizes immigration of Europeans, it is still an invasion.  Do you think the native americans were any less concerned about the arrival of the Europeans because the British and Spanish crowns authorized the settlement by Europeans.  It was an invasion.
> 
> 3. _(Palestine originally included land in what is now Jordan)_
> 
> 
> Jordan was included in the unsigned  draft of the Palestine Mandate for eight months, from July 1920 to March 1921 when Trans-Jordan was given to the Hashemites.  The League of Nations gave  the mandatory responsibility  only in July 1922, after Trans-Jordan had already been transferred. (Note the date of signing it is in black and white).
> 
> Prince Abdullah was handed the state of Transjordan by the British in 1921
> 
> Transjordan and Israel: Examining the Foundations of a Special Relationship - Student Pulse
Click to expand...






 Correct the Palestine that existed in 1920 that included what is now Syria and Transjordan

 Of no consequence as the mandate was set up to facilitate the migration of Jews from around the world back to their historic home as this shows

 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration* under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 


 Read again another article from the mandate

*In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine*

(Palestine originally included land in what is now Jordan)

as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, 



 The draft was agreed in 1920 and was sat on to allow Jordan to take power , but it was still controlled by Britain until 1949


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Yugoslavia or Sudan was receiving massive U.S. financial and diplomatic support. Israel would be sanctioned to bankruptcy if it carried out ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dream is based on a false premise. Israeli "controlled" lands are not Israel and do not require Israeli citizenship for the inhabitants who can, with a bit of work, establish a "long desired" national home of their own. They just can't have Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The South Africans tried that ploy with the Bantustans.  Doesn't work.
Click to expand...




 Why cant you practise what you preach and stay on topic.........


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your dream is based on a false premise. Israeli "controlled" lands are not Israel and do not require Israeli citizenship for the inhabitants who can, with a bit of work, establish a "long desired" national home of their own. They just can't have Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South Africans tried that ploy with the Bantustans.  Doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant you practise what you preach and stay on topic.........
Click to expand...


It is analogous situation, i.e. to claim that people are not citizens of a country, but over which a country has effective sovereign control. Doesn't work.


----------



## MHunterB

montelatici said:


> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.



And just how does  "oppression" take place?  Are there signs on the beaches of Tel Aviv saying 'No dogs or non-Jews allowed'?  Do towns in Israel have signs saying "Muslims/Christians, don't let the sun set on you here'?  Do Israelis picnic at lynchings of Muslims and Christians, and make picture postcards for soveniers?


----------



## montelatici

MHunterB said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just how does  "oppression" take place?  Are there signs on the beaches of Tel Aviv saying 'No dogs or non-Jews allowed'?  Do towns in Israel have signs saying "Muslims/Christians, don't let the sun set on you here'?  Do Israelis picnic at lynchings of Muslims and Christians, and make picture postcards for soveniers?
Click to expand...


Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"

"In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.

Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.

Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.

Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.

Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in unrecognized villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."


----------



## Kondor3

Sounds like the Palestinians haven't figured out yet that they're being driven out and can't stop it and haven't gotten off their asses yet and moved away...



montelatici said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just how does  "oppression" take place?  Are there signs on the beaches of Tel Aviv saying 'No dogs or non-Jews allowed'?  Do towns in Israel have signs saying "Muslims/Christians, don't let the sun set on you here'?  Do Israelis picnic at lynchings of Muslims and Christians, and make picture postcards for soveniers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"
> 
> "In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.
> 
> Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.
> 
> Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.
> 
> Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.
> 
> Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in unrecognized villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Sounds like the Palestinians haven't figured out yet that they're being driven out and can't stop it and haven't gotten off their asses yet and moved away...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just how does  "oppression" take place?  Are there signs on the beaches of Tel Aviv saying 'No dogs or non-Jews allowed'?  Do towns in Israel have signs saying "Muslims/Christians, don't let the sun set on you here'?  Do Israelis picnic at lynchings of Muslims and Christians, and make picture postcards for soveniers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"
> 
> "In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.
> 
> Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.
> 
> Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.
> 
> Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.
> 
> Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in unrecognized villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The Palestinians aren't going anywhere.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Palestinians haven't figured out yet that they're being driven out and can't stop it and haven't gotten off their asses yet and moved away...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"
> 
> "In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians&#8217; right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.
> 
> Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.
> 
> Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.
> 
> Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.
> 
> Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in &#8220;unrecognized&#8221; villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians aren't going anywhere.*
Click to expand...







The Palestinians own propaganda maps tell us a different story...


----------



## montelatici

"MOSCOVITCH: Annexation of the West Bank to Israel would substantially skyrocket Arab population numbers, and the birth rates of non-Jews would remain high and potentially surpass the Jewish Israeli population. For this reason, it is imperative that Israel not annex the West Bank and negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians to ensure Israeli security and provide the Palestinians with sovereignty in their own state.

Without a two-state solution and the annexation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Israel will eventually turn into a single, bi-national state that would dissolve Israel's Jewish identity."

High Arab birth rate in Israel raises concerns about country?s Jewish identity


----------



## Kondor3

When the Palestinians are standing five high on each others' shoulders, because they're squeezed onto something the size of a postage stamp, they'll leave...

The Reconquista continues apace, and accelerates...


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to read that pro-Israelis are concerned about anti_israeli bias in the media.  If any people/country have gotten a pass in the U.S. media it is Israel and the Jewish majority in Israel.  Americans are basically brainwashed from childhood to believe that Israel (the world's 5th or 6th military power) is a poor little country under threat from powerful Arab powers.  That could not be further from the truth.
> Israel's Jews oppress millions of non-Jews just because of their religion, and that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just how does  "oppression" take place?  Are there signs on the beaches of Tel Aviv saying 'No dogs or non-Jews allowed'?  Do towns in Israel have signs saying "Muslims/Christians, don't let the sun set on you here'?  Do Israelis picnic at lynchings of Muslims and Christians, and make picture postcards for soveniers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"
> 
> "In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.
> 
> Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.
> 
> Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.
> 
> Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.
> 
> Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in unrecognized villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."
Click to expand...


Peaceful assembly laws in Israel are not the same as the US.  A demonstration of protest would need a permit.   Palestinian protesting in the WB or gaza are under completely different laws than Israel.  I doubt that a palestinian can just protest in Israeli control territory without permit.
Tamimi has been out for a year.  A member of his family is guilty of killing a settler in the WB.
As for the Bedouin villages, they are living in substandard conditions where services cannot be provided for them.  They have gone through years of legal battles and they must be moved to recognized villages.  Where they were was only a temporary location and never owned by them or intended to be permanent.  They are only being moved a short distance down the road where they will have water, sewage, garbage pickup, schools, healthcare and electricity.  There are minimum standards for housing for health and safety that are not met in a shanty tent dwelling without proper water or sanitary conditions.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just how does  "oppression" take place?  Are there signs on the beaches of Tel Aviv saying 'No dogs or non-Jews allowed'?  Do towns in Israel have signs saying "Muslims/Christians, don't let the sun set on you here'?  Do Israelis picnic at lynchings of Muslims and Christians, and make picture postcards for soveniers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"
> 
> "In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.
> 
> Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.
> 
> Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.
> 
> Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.
> 
> Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in unrecognized villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peaceful assembly laws in Israel are not the same as the US.  A demonstration of protest would need a permit.   Palestinian protesting in the WB or gaza are under completely different laws than Israel.  I doubt that a palestinian can just protest in Israeli control territory without permit.
> Tamimi has been out for a year.  A member of his family is guilty of killing a settler in the WB.
> As for the Bedouin villages, they are living in substandard conditions where services cannot be provided for them.  They have gone through years of legal battles and they must be moved to recognized villages.  Where they were was only a temporary location and never owned by them or intended to be permanent.  They are only being moved a short distance down the road where they will have water, sewage, garbage pickup, schools, healthcare and electricity.  There are minimum standards for housing for health and safety that are not met in a shanty tent dwelling without proper water or sanitary conditions.
Click to expand...


If the Bedouins want to live in third-world accommodations, why don't they move to Ethiopia?  Whenever there's a black-out, it sucks for me.  And they complain just because Israel wants to improve their lives.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Kondor3 said:


> When the Palestinians are standing five high on each others' shoulders, because they're squeezed onto something the size of a postage stamp, they'll leave...
> 
> The Reconquista continues apace, and accelerates...



I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.


----------



## Kondor3

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians are standing five high on each others' shoulders, because they're squeezed onto something the size of a postage stamp, they'll leave...
> 
> The Reconquista continues apace, and accelerates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Nevertheless...

Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.

It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.

Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians are standing five high on each others' shoulders, because they're squeezed onto something the size of a postage stamp, they'll leave...
> 
> The Reconquista continues apace, and accelerates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
Click to expand...


Closer to the day that Israel becomes a secular state.  Non-Jews will be a majority in the land Israel controls within a few years and a majority within 10.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closer to the day that Israel becomes a secular state.  Non-Jews will be a majority in the land Israel controls within a few years and a majority within 10.
Click to expand...

No biggie. Ever heard of David. Or that Samson dude with an ass's jawbone?  *BOOM!*


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closer to the day that Israel becomes a secular state.  Non-Jews will be a majority in the land Israel controls within a few years and a majority within 10.
Click to expand...

Allowing non-Jews to become a voting majority within Israel would spell the death of the Jewish state.

The Israelis will evict and expel the Palestinians in large numbers in a _preemptive_ and proactive fashion, _long_ before any such threat can materialize.

After waiting for 2000 years to get their ancestral and spiritual homeland back, and after having 6,000,000 of their men, women and children slaughtered within Living Memory, and after spending the past 66 years building and sustaining and defending their Resurrected Homeland... they will do damned-near anything to protect that Homeland.

That will involve Expulsion, rather than Massacre.

It is the logical and inevitable outcome of the present state of affairs, and the threat posed by the Palestinians if they are allowed to become a demographic threat.

What the rest of the world thinks won't matter a damn when the time comes.

More importantly, most of the rest of the world won't do anything more than pay lip service to international law, but otherwise won't lift a finger to stop it, when the time comes for the Israelis to expel the Palestinians.

The Israelis know this already.

The Palestinians don't believe it can happen to them, and are outright daring the Israelis to do it.

They are going to get their wish, sooner rather than later.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians are standing five high on each others' shoulders, because they're squeezed onto something the size of a postage stamp, they'll leave...
> 
> The Reconquista continues apace, and accelerates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
Click to expand...


I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only...You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets, that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over. Time will allow for Armament parity. Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference.



And none of her enemies fear death...


----------



## montelatici

Hopefully, it won't come to war.  Like in South Africa, the warring parties, full of hate for each other,  can come to terms and the rights of all the people can be protected in a single state.  So, it won't be called the Jewish State, as long as Jews are guaranteed their civil, religious and other rights, it will be ok.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> ...I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...


All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.



> "..._You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only_..."


Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.



> "..._You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets_..."


And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.

Repeatedly.

Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.

Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?

The answer = nobody.

Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.

What's left?

Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.

Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.

Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.

Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.



> "..._that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over_..."


If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.

No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.



> "..._Time will allow for Armament parity_..."


That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.



> "...Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference."


A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.



> "..._And none of her enemies fear death_..."


When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.

The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.

The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.

It's over.

The Israelis are holding a high-end straight flush.

The Palestinians are holding a pair of deuces.

The Palestinians are almost out of playing-chips, and the bet is coming 'round to them again.


----------



## pbel

montelatici said:


> Hopefully, it won't come to war.  Like in South Africa, the warring parties, full of hate for each other,  can come to terms and the rights of all the people can be protected in a single state.  So, it won't be called the Jewish State, as long as Jews are guaranteed their civil, religious and other rights, it will be ok.



I certainly think the Arab League offer of recognition, normal ties, and for me personally is trade...I'm sure with Israeli/Jewish know-how in business would make the ME flourish. end of conflict end of reasons for terrorism on Americans.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.
> 
> 
> And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.
> 
> Repeatedly.
> 
> Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.
> 
> Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?
> 
> The answer = nobody.
> 
> Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.
> 
> Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.
> 
> Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.
> 
> 
> If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.
> 
> No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.
> 
> 
> That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._And none of her enemies fear death_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.
> 
> The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.
> 
> The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.
Click to expand...


Man, you are boring, same old re-play...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.
> 
> 
> Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.
> 
> 
> And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.
> 
> Repeatedly.
> 
> Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.
> 
> Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?
> 
> The answer = nobody.
> 
> Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.
> 
> Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.
> 
> Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.
> 
> 
> If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.
> 
> No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.
> 
> 
> That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.
> 
> 
> A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._And none of her enemies fear death_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.
> 
> The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.
> 
> The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Man, you are boring, same old re-play.*..
Click to expand...


Pot, meet kettle...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.
> 
> 
> Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.
> 
> 
> And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.
> 
> Repeatedly.
> 
> Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.
> 
> Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?
> 
> The answer = nobody.
> 
> Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.
> 
> Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.
> 
> Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.
> 
> 
> If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.
> 
> No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.
> 
> 
> That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.
> 
> 
> A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.
> 
> 
> When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.
> 
> The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.
> 
> The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Man, you are boring, same old re-play.*..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle...
Click to expand...


*At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! *please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you are boring, same old re-play...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! _please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback.

Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Feel free to serve-up substantive topic-related counterpoint, at your convenience.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only...You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets, that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over. Time will allow for Armament parity. Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> And none of her enemies fear death...
Click to expand...


You really think any of the Arab states are going to attack Israel and draw them i to a war?? If that's the case, then why are no Arab states attacking Israel now??

Could it be that they clearky remember what happened the last three times that happened?
Could it be that they know Israel has several hundred nukes??
Could it be that they know Israel has the most highy trained army that is armed to the teeth?
Could it be that they know that Israel has America's backing?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.
> 
> 
> Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.
> 
> 
> And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.
> 
> Repeatedly.
> 
> Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.
> 
> Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?
> 
> The answer = nobody.
> 
> Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.
> 
> Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.
> 
> Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.
> 
> 
> If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.
> 
> No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.
> 
> 
> That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.
> 
> 
> A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._And none of her enemies fear death_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.
> 
> The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.
> 
> The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are boring, same old re-play...
Click to expand...


Pbel, if there is anyone that repeats the same old crap, it's you.

You can't handle Kondor's posts because you know it's the truth.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Man, you are boring, same old re-play.*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! *please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!   

You?? Educating someone else???
Educating them on what, Palestinian propaganda??


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only...You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets, that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over. Time will allow for Armament parity. Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> And none of her enemies fear death...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think any of the Arab states are going to attack Israel and draw them i to a war?? If that's the case, then why are no Arab states attacking Israel now??
> 
> Could it be that they clearky remember what happened the last three times that happened?
> Could it be that they know Israel has several hundred nukes??
> Could it be that they know Israel has the most highy trained army that is armed to the teeth?
> Could it be that they know that Israel has America's backing?
Click to expand...


Toast, it is very obvious that the Arab Nation is not ready to do anything serious for many years to come...If Israel retains E. Jerusalem and continues to occupy and annex land there is nothing to do except terrorism to Israel and the West...

All of the ME Economies are feudalistic, no banks, no upward mobility for the people...Thus the Arab Awakening.

In time as things get sorted out, the kings and dictators will be gone. Saudi Arabia paid for all of Pakistan's nukes with oil money.

When the Revolutions are over(20-50 years, ME Economies will develop...Because of the sheer size i.e. populations within a short time they will be able to afford Armament parrity.

If hate still exists because of conflict, this area needs a tiny spark to end it. That's what's coming without a peace deal and acceptance...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! *please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
> 
> You?? Educating someone else???
> Educating them on what, Palestinian propaganda??
Click to expand...


honest, you're so patently un-educated about international relations and economics, that you'll trip your-self up.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! *please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
> 
> You?? Educating someone else???
> Educating them on what, Palestinian propaganda??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> honest, you're so patently un-educated about international relations and economics, that you'll trip your-self up.
Click to expand...


Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
> 
> You?? Educating someone else???
> Educating them on what, Palestinian propaganda??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> honest, you're so patently un-educated about international relations and economics, that you'll trip your-self up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion
Click to expand...


political science.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Palestinians haven't figured out yet that they're being driven out and can't stop it and haven't gotten off their asses yet and moved away...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpts from Human Rights Watch "WORLD REPORT 2013"
> 
> "In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers injured 151 Palestinians as of November 27. Israel imposed severe restrictions on Palestinians right to freedom of movement, continued to build unlawful settlements in occupied territory, and arbitrarily detained Palestinians, including children and peaceful protesters.......Israeli forces also fired on and confiscated Palestinian fishing boats that sailed more than 3 nautical miles from the coast, prohibiting access to 85 percent of Gaza's maritime area under international law.....As of November 27, Israeli authorities had demolished 568 Palestinian homes and other buildings in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), displacing 1,014 people.
> 
> Building permits are difficult or impossible for Palestinians to obtain in East Jerusalem or in the 60 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control (Area C), whereas a separate planning process readily granted settlers new construction permits. Israel approved donor-funded construction of 14 schools and 5 clinics for Palestinians in Area C, but threatened entire Palestinian communities with demolition, such as 8 villages in an area designated as a military training zone.
> 
> Settlers continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on discriminatory laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948, but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem......Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, including checkpoints, closure obstacles, and the separation barrier. Settlement-related movement restrictions forced around 190,000 Palestinians to take time-consuming detours rather than the most direct route to nearby cities, the UN reported.
> 
> Israel continued construction of the separation barrier around East Jerusalem. Some 85 percent of the barrier's route falls within the West Bank, isolating 11,000 Palestinians who are barred from traveling to Israel and who must cross the barrier to access livelihoods and services in the West Bank, and separated Palestinian farmers and landowners in 150 communities from their lands, the UN reported......Israeli military authorities detained Palestinians who advocated non-violent protest against Israeli settlements and the route of the separation barrier. In May, an Israeli military court sentenced Palestinian activist Bassem Tamimi to 13 months in prison for leading demonstrations against land confiscation, in violation of his right to peaceful assembly, and for urging children to throw stones. The conviction on the latter charge was based primarily on a child's coerced statement.
> 
> Israeli authorities continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint, question them without a family member or a lawyer present, and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they did not understand......Bedouin citizens of Israel who live in unrecognized villages suffered discriminatory home demolitions on the basis that their homes were built illegally. Israeli authorities refused to prepare plans for the communities and to approve construction permits, and rejected plans submitted by the communities themselves, but have retroactively legalized Jewish-owned private farms and planned new Jewish communities in the same areas. In 2012, the Israel Land Administration demolished 47 Bedouin structures as of September, , not including tents erected by villagers from al-Arakib, which Israeli authorities have demolished 39 times the Bedouin-rights group Dukium reported."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...





 Don't be so sure their own might just round them up and send them out


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> "MOSCOVITCH: Annexation of the West Bank to Israel would substantially skyrocket Arab population numbers, and the birth rates of non-Jews would remain high and potentially surpass the Jewish Israeli population. For this reason, it is imperative that Israel not annex the West Bank and negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians to ensure Israeli security and provide the Palestinians with sovereignty in their own state.
> 
> Without a two-state solution and the annexation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Israel will eventually turn into a single, bi-national state that would dissolve Israel's Jewish identity."
> 
> High Arab birth rate in Israel raises concerns about country?s Jewish identity






 Simple answer is to impose a tax on children that applies to all. Up to 2 are allowed tax free, but go over and taxation rises till you cant afford any more. So 3 children sees an increase in tax of 20%, 4 sees 40% 5 sees 100%. This will affect everyone from all religions and races so cant be seen as racist of anti anything.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closer to the day that Israel becomes a secular state.  Non-Jews will be a majority in the land Israel controls within a few years and a majority within 10.
Click to expand...





Not if birth control laws are brought in and the militants evicted under International law


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been there and that statement is a bit exxaggerated, but we get your point.  Like Cher said in the song "Half-breed":  "When you're not wanted, you don't stick around."  Some people can't take a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Nevertheless...
> 
> Nudging them out is more humane than driving them into the sea, as the Palestinians would have done to the Jews, if they'd fought harder and actually won in 1948.
> 
> It's more dangerous doing it the slow, nudging way, and it costs more, and takes a generation or two, but the Israelis will get there... judging by the Palestinians' own maps, they're almost there now as it is.
> 
> Not much longer, now - as History measures time - until the Palestinians have no choice but to acknowledge Reality, and pack up and leave - amongst those not already emigrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only...You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets, that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over. Time will allow for Armament parity. Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> And none of her enemies fear death...
Click to expand...




 The way Iran is going it will face an arab spring of its own that will set it back 1,000 years. While this is going Israel will be developing weapons that will destroy people but leave houses upright, or the other way round. Sonics and light can be used to temporarily disable people, or even to disable them permanently. High pressure low volume explosives that send out shock waves to knock down buildings, ultra low frequency sound wave to turn bones to Jelly. Ultra high sound waves that scramble brains, modulated sound waves that can kill silently. We have all these now, just not the transmission methods that are portable.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hopefully, it won't come to war.  Like in South Africa, the warring parties, full of hate for each other,  can come to terms and the rights of all the people can be protected in a single state.  So, it won't be called the Jewish State, as long as Jews are guaranteed their civil, religious and other rights, it will be ok.





 It will still be a Jewish state and all Israel has to do is follow Islamic procedure and make muslims 4th class citizens. Give them a contract that ties them down and they lose everything.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, it won't come to war.  Like in South Africa, the warring parties, full of hate for each other,  can come to terms and the rights of all the people can be protected in a single state.  So, it won't be called the Jewish State, as long as Jews are guaranteed their civil, religious and other rights, it will be ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly think the Arab League offer of recognition, normal ties, and for me personally is trade...I'm sure with Israeli/Jewish know-how in business would make the ME flourish. end of conflict end of reasons for terrorism on Americans.
Click to expand...




 The arab league offer has sank out of sight, it was a non starter from the begining


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.
> 
> 
> Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.
> 
> 
> And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.
> 
> Repeatedly.
> 
> Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.
> 
> Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?
> 
> The answer = nobody.
> 
> Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.
> 
> Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.
> 
> Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.
> 
> 
> If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.
> 
> No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.
> 
> 
> That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.
> 
> 
> A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._And none of her enemies fear death_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.
> 
> The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.
> 
> The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are boring, same old re-play...
Click to expand...





 Just like you with your faux arab league plan and your immature rants then


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Man, you are boring, same old re-play.*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! *please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.
Click to expand...




 You aint got the brains to educate a slug


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only...You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets, that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over. Time will allow for Armament parity. Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> And none of her enemies fear death...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think any of the Arab states are going to attack Israel and draw them i to a war?? If that's the case, then why are no Arab states attacking Israel now??
> 
> Could it be that they clearky remember what happened the last three times that happened?
> Could it be that they know Israel has several hundred nukes??
> Could it be that they know Israel has the most highy trained army that is armed to the teeth?
> Could it be that they know that Israel has America's backing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toast, it is very obvious that the Arab Nation is not ready to do anything serious for many years to come...If Israel retains E. Jerusalem and continues to occupy and annex land there is nothing to do except terrorism to Israel and the West...
> 
> All of the ME Economies are feudalistic, no banks, no upward mobility for the people...Thus the Arab Awakening.
> 
> In time as things get sorted out, the kings and dictators will be gone. Saudi Arabia paid for all of Pakistan's nukes with oil money.
> 
> When the Revolutions are over(20-50 years, ME Economies will develop...Because of the sheer size i.e. populations within a short time they will be able to afford Armament parrity.
> 
> If hate still exists because of conflict, this area needs a tiny spark to end it. That's what's coming without a peace deal and acceptance...
Click to expand...





 Yes the end of arab colonialism that would mean the end of the M.E. and Oil. Who would put out the fires when the oil wells went up in flames. Who would repair the pumps whem they failed because there would be no westerners there having been murdered or driven out.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *At least I'm not a Tattle Teller! *please don't turn me in for trying to educate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
> 
> You?? Educating someone else???
> Educating them on what, Palestinian propaganda??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> honest, you're so patently un-educated about international relations and economics, that you'll trip your-self up.
Click to expand...





 Its you that needs educating if you think killing up to 50% of a countries population in a takeover will make it stronger. That causing wars across the M.E. will raise the economies of the nations you attack and invade. Were will the people live after you have destroyed their homes. Were will they be treated for festering wounds when you have blown up the hospitals how will they be fed when the crops are rotting in the fields. Just look at Syria with widespread famine, disease and homelessness. That is the reality of your stupidity


----------



## montelatici

i Israel will be developing weapons that will destroy people but leave houses upright,

Wonderful country and people.


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> i Israel will be developing weapons that will destroy people but leave houses upright,
> 
> Wonderful country and people.



Arabs are still working on perfecting the slingshot.

Losers in cat litter countries too dumb to invent toilet paper.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> i Israel will be developing weapons that will destroy people but leave houses upright,
> 
> Wonderful country and people.





 The weapons are already in existence and have been for at least 30 years. The new weapons are close orbit satellites with laser guidance that can take out a general putting the troops in disarray . Did you see the footage of the scud missiles in Baghdad that stopped and waved for the cameras.


----------



## montelatici

You are deranged.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> i Israel will be developing weapons that will destroy people but leave houses upright,
> 
> Wonderful country and people.


It's called a Neutron Bomb.

The United States, Russia (in its Soviet days), France and China have all tested one.

Personally, I think America and its People _ARE_ wonderful.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> You are deranged.



Why?


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Toast, why do you not see that Phoenall is completely deranged? I keep asking him to post his certificate of sanity because Britain requires that document for recently released patients.

When I asked him to produce it he quickly explained the law.

Who would know that except a nut-job? I read that law at Brandeis.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "MOSCOVITCH: Annexation of the West Bank to Israel would substantially skyrocket Arab population numbers, and the birth rates of non-Jews would remain high and potentially surpass the Jewish Israeli population. For this reason, it is imperative that Israel not annex the West Bank and negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians to ensure Israeli security and provide the Palestinians with sovereignty in their own state.
> 
> Without a two-state solution and the annexation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Israel will eventually turn into a single, bi-national state that would dissolve Israel's Jewish identity."
> 
> High Arab birth rate in Israel raises concerns about country?s Jewish identity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer is to impose a tax on children that applies to all. Up to 2 are allowed tax free, but go over and taxation rises till you cant afford any more. So 3 children sees an increase in tax of 20%, 4 sees 40% 5 sees 100%. This will affect everyone from all religions and races so cant be seen as racist of anti anything.
Click to expand...


Only have a large family if you can afford them.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, it won't come to war.  Like in South Africa, the warring parties, full of hate for each other,  can come to terms and the rights of all the people can be protected in a single state.  So, it won't be called the Jewish State, as long as Jews are guaranteed their civil, religious and other rights, it will be ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly think the Arab League offer of recognition, normal ties, and for me personally is trade...I'm sure with Israeli/Jewish know-how in business would make the ME flourish. end of conflict end of reasons for terrorism on Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab league offer has sank out of sight, it was a non starter from the begining
Click to expand...


They just said they will not recognize Israel as a "jewish" state.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You are deranged.





 Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
Click to expand...


Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toast, why do you not see that Phoenall is completely deranged? I keep asking him to post his certificate of sanity because Britain requires that document for recently released patients.
> 
> When I asked him to produce it he quickly explained the law.
> 
> Who would know that except a nut-job? I read that law at Brandeis.
Click to expand...





 We have a law in the UK that says ignorance of the law is no defence, so we are expected to know the law as good as any Judge. Unlike you who will use ignorance of the law as a defence if you are ever arrested.

 But you are wrong on that as no UK resident is required to hold a certificate of sanity, that is just your ISLAMONAZI rule No 13 of disinformation. If all else fails and you are losing the argument resort to making claims of your opponents sanity to derail the subject matter.

 It is you that is deranged and carries a letter of sanity after  being released from the asylum


----------



## montelatici

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
Click to expand...


He is a credit to the defenders of the indefensible and not all there.


----------



## Phoenall

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "MOSCOVITCH: Annexation of the West Bank to Israel would substantially skyrocket Arab population numbers, and the birth rates of non-Jews would remain high and potentially surpass the Jewish Israeli population. For this reason, it is imperative that Israel not annex the West Bank and negotiate a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians to ensure Israeli security and provide the Palestinians with sovereignty in their own state.
> 
> Without a two-state solution and the annexation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Israel will eventually turn into a single, bi-national state that would dissolve Israel's Jewish identity."
> 
> High Arab birth rate in Israel raises concerns about country?s Jewish identity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer is to impose a tax on children that applies to all. Up to 2 are allowed tax free, but go over and taxation rises till you cant afford any more. So 3 children sees an increase in tax of 20%, 4 sees 40% 5 sees 100%. This will affect everyone from all religions and races so cant be seen as racist of anti anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only have a large family if you can afford them.
Click to expand...





 That is right and the UK is debating such a law at the moment. Australia has a similar one were unemployed people are given free birth control so they don't produce any more children. If they do they lose part of their welfare


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
Click to expand...






 More of your ISLAMONAZI deflection using rule 23. If all else fails use a made up term that means nothing as if it is a genuine condition to libel your opponent, even better if you can use Godwins Law at the same time.

 Have you scanned your certificate of sanity yet for the board to see.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a credit to the defenders of the indefensible and not all there.
Click to expand...





 OOOOO! the little boy is trying to be clever, why don't you go and see your imam for more instruction in how a good little muslim boy should act


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
Click to expand...

That method is better than Haitian voodoo to disable an enemy.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a credit to the defenders of the indefensible and not all there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOO! the little boy is trying to be clever, why don't you go and see your imam for more instruction in how a good little muslim boy should act
Click to expand...


How revealing, these defenders of the indefensible believe that calling non-Muslims, Muslims is an insult.  It confirms their racist nature. They use it like the "N" word, but it is only an "N" word to these racist (in the broader meaning of the term) nutcases.  You are not insulting me by calling me a Muslim, you are just incorrect.  By the way thanks, calling someone my age a boy, is rather flattering.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a credit to the defenders of the indefensible and not all there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOO! the little boy is trying to be clever, why don't you go and see your imam for more instruction in how a good little muslim boy should act
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How revealing, these defenders of the indefensible believe that calling non-Muslims, Muslims is an insult...
Click to expand...

America is a Secular Christian nation, in practice, and de facto, if not de jure, and has never been Muslim-friendly. Our first war (1803) was against Muslims.

After 9-11, this is doubly-true; at least outside the domain of Internationalists and Muslim Militant sympathizers and Palesltinian sympathizers.

Move beyond those domains and you will find a lively diversity of broad and strong opinion regarding whether calling someone a Muslim can be viewed as insulting.

It all depends upon one's perspective.



> ...It confirms their racist nature...


Muslim is a Race?

And here I thought it was a hybrid Religoius Belief System coupled with a primitive common-denominator Cultural and Social Scheme as well as a common-denominator Legal Code - all of which have become highly problematic in its interactions with The West.



> ..._They use it like the "N" word, but it is only an "N" word to these racist (in the broader meaning of the term) nutcases_...


Again, it all depends upon one's perspective.



> ..._You are not insulting me by calling me a Muslim, you are just incorrect_...


You can certainly choose not to be insulted by such an appellation.

I'm just not sure that many of your fellow Americans would agree in the present climate.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
Click to expand...

Goebbels was a ZioNazi... both Zionist and Nazi?... well waddya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...


----------



## montelatici

"America is a Secular Christian nation"

Contradiction in terms

"Muslim is a Race?"  

As I said racist, in the broader meaning of the term.

"You can certainly choose not to be insulted by such an appellation."

You betcha, because I have nothing against Muslims or Jews.  Or Hindus or Buddhists.


----------



## Sally

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goebbels was a ZioNazi... both Zionist and Nazi?... well waddya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...
Click to expand...


Actually, Kondor, you have to laugh.  It is like you have a boiler room full of born Muslims and converts to Islam (usually by virtue of marriage), and they get on forums and spout their nonsense.  It is worth a chuckle seeing all the ZioNazis thrown around by them, a favorite term on the NeoNazi/Islamofascist hate sites where the real NeoNazis and the Islamofascists are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game.  The sad thing is that people are being killed in the Muslim world because of their religious beliefs the same way as was seen by the Nazis.  As an aside, didn't some Catholic bishop tell Catholic girls not to marry Muslim men?


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the friendly service, in counterpointing the horseshit that the pro-Palestinian side comes up with... no extra charge.
> 
> 
> Stop it, Pbel, yer scarin' everybody, with that Big Bad Ummah of yours.
> 
> 
> And you forget that Israel has kicked each and every one of their asses.
> 
> Repeatedly.
> 
> Their neighbors have had enough of tangling with Israel for a while.
> 
> Besides, who's left on their feet in the region, on the Arab side, capable of successfully assaulting Israel?
> 
> The answer = nobody.
> 
> Egypt is in the crapper. Syria is in the crapper. Iraq is in the crapper. Lebanon is in the crapper. Libya is in the crapper.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> Jordan? Hell, they've joined with Israel and Egypt to monitor and fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Saudi Arabai and her pissant micro-shiekdoms nearby simply aren't up to the challenge, and would get their asses kicked by the Israelis in fairly short order.
> 
> Iran? They talk big, but they aren't going to do shit, in the end, other than irritate Israel by proxy. They won't take-on Israel directly. They know they'll get their asses kicked if they do. And they know that the United States will help Israel to do it, if it comes down to that.
> 
> Pakistan? Hell, they don't dare take their eyes off the Indians, and they can't even control their own Northwestern Provinces, never mind screw with somebody else, thousands of miles away.
> 
> 
> If the Iranians nuke Israel, Israel's own beyond-the-borders nuclear capacity would hit them back hard, giving better than they received. And, the United States would probably take the opportunity to cook-down a few choice Iranian targets, as any good ally would.
> 
> No... the Iranians theocrats are crazy, but they're not stupid. If they insist upon putting-on the Martyr's Hat, however, both Israel and the United States will accommodate them.
> 
> 
> That assumes that Israel - already with a formidable lead - remains standing still, waiting for the others to catch up. Unlikely.
> 
> 
> A hundred years from now, the descendants of today's so-called Palestinians will be living happy and properous lives in Jordan, Lebanon and other places, the Jewish Reconquista will be a fait accompli, and there will be nothing left to fight about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "..._And none of her enemies fear death_..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they're fighting for something they believe in strongly enough, I'm sure they're just as capable of fearless behavior as any other collection of peoples.
> 
> The problem for you is, they no longer care enough about the Palestinians to risk such an outcome... not that they ever really did in the first place... but they've even eased-up on paying Lip Service to the idea of such aid... and some of them now even collaborate with the Israelis to wall-off those mad dogs.
> 
> The Muslims shot their wad in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and have poured enough blood and treasure into the Fight for Palestine to satisfy their honor and Allah... they've had enough, and won't be in any condition to do anything about it again, for some generations, if ever, by which time, the basis for the dispute will be dispersed and off the scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you are boring, same old re-play...
Click to expand...


 That from a flaming asshoe who not only saves his silly posts for years but thinks them so brilliant he reposts them years later.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly get a kick reading your Kaptain Kourages persona and jingoisms...You keep thinking that this conflict is between the unarmed Palestinians and Israel only...You forget that Israel has warred with all her neighbors and her puny land mass is an easy target in the age of Rockets, that's why she fears Iran, one hit and its over. Time will allow for Armament parity. Fifty years, a hundred? What's the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> And none of her enemies fear death...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think any of the Arab states are going to attack Israel and draw them i to a war?? If that's the case, then why are no Arab states attacking Israel now??
> 
> Could it be that they clearky remember what happened the last three times that happened?
> Could it be that they know Israel has several hundred nukes??
> Could it be that they know Israel has the most highy trained army that is armed to the teeth?
> Could it be that they know that Israel has America's backing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toast, it is very obvious that the Arab Nation is not ready to do anything serious for many years to come...If Israel retains E. Jerusalem and continues to occupy and annex land there is nothing to do except terrorism to Israel and the West...
> 
> All of the ME Economies are feudalistic, no banks, no upward mobility for the people...Thus the Arab Awakening.
> 
> In time as things get sorted out, the kings and dictators will be gone. Saudi Arabia paid for all of Pakistan's nukes with oil money.
> 
> When the Revolutions are over(20-50 years, ME Economies will develop...Because of the sheer size i.e. populations within a short time they will be able to afford Armament parrity.
> 
> If hate still exists because of conflict, this area needs a tiny spark to end it. That's what's coming without a peace deal and acceptance...
Click to expand...


If granny had had cajones she would've been gramps instead.
As always your conclusions are the result of assumptions and suppositions which are baseless, self-serving, wishful thinking.
Garbage in = garbage out.


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think any of the Arab states are going to attack Israel and draw them i to a war?? If that's the case, then why are no Arab states attacking Israel now??
> 
> Could it be that they clearky remember what happened the last three times that happened?
> Could it be that they know Israel has several hundred nukes??
> Could it be that they know Israel has the most highy trained army that is armed to the teeth?
> Could it be that they know that Israel has America's backing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, it is very obvious that the Arab Nation is not ready to do anything serious for many years to come...If Israel retains E. Jerusalem and continues to occupy and annex land there is nothing to do except terrorism to Israel and the West...
> 
> All of the ME Economies are feudalistic, no banks, no upward mobility for the people...Thus the Arab Awakening.
> 
> In time as things get sorted out, the kings and dictators will be gone. Saudi Arabia paid for all of Pakistan's nukes with oil money.
> 
> When the Revolutions are over(20-50 years, ME Economies will develop...Because of the sheer size i.e. populations within a short time they will be able to afford Armament parrity.
> 
> If hate still exists because of conflict, this area needs a tiny spark to end it. That's what's coming without a peace deal and acceptance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If granny had had cajones she would've been gramps instead.
> As always your conclusions are the result of assumptions and suppositions which are baseless, self-serving, wishful thinking.
> Garbage in = garbage out.
Click to expand...


Clearly Sniffer you have no nose for political science and economic development.

Will Israel Live to 100? - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic

At some level most perceptive Israelis seem to grasp these future existential dangers. In fact, in conversations with Israelis on the left and the (moderate) right in academe, the military, the government, and the security services, I've been struck by their grim declarations that they as a people aren't going anywhere, but also by their foreboding about the country their children will live in. Most of all, though, I've been struck by the frequency with which these men and womenpatriots allhave wistfully said, "We should have taken Uganda" (which Britain offered to the Zionist leadership in 1903). History shows that many problems have no solutiona fact all but unfathomable to Americans. Nevertheless, the century-long Palestinian-Zionist conflict is a story of two peoples, each with reasonable claims to the same piece of earth; and nearly every aspect of that story suggests that in the endand to the detriment of those peoples, their region, and perhaps the entire worldtheir aspirations are not amenable to compromise.


----------



## pbel

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, it is very obvious that the Arab Nation is not ready to do anything serious for many years to come...If Israel retains E. Jerusalem and continues to occupy and annex land there is nothing to do except terrorism to Israel and the West...
> 
> All of the ME Economies are feudalistic, no banks, no upward mobility for the people...Thus the Arab Awakening.
> 
> In time as things get sorted out, the kings and dictators will be gone. Saudi Arabia paid for all of Pakistan's nukes with oil money.
> 
> When the Revolutions are over(20-50 years, ME Economies will develop...Because of the sheer size i.e. populations within a short time they will be able to afford Armament parrity.
> 
> If hate still exists because of conflict, this area needs a tiny spark to end it. That's what's coming without a peace deal and acceptance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If granny had had cajones she would've been gramps instead.
> As always your conclusions are the result of assumptions and suppositions which are baseless, self-serving, wishful thinking.
> Garbage in = garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly Sniffer you have no nose for political science and economic development.
> 
> Will Israel Live to 100? - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic
> 
> At some level most perceptive Israelis seem to grasp these future existential dangers. In fact, in conversations with Israelis on the left and the (moderate) right in academe, the military, the government, and the security services, I've been struck by their grim declarations that they as a people aren't going anywhere, but also by their foreboding about the country their children will live in. Most of all, though, I've been struck by the frequency with which these men and womenpatriots allhave wistfully said, "We should have taken Uganda" (which Britain offered to the Zionist leadership in 1903). History shows that many problems have no solutiona fact all but unfathomable to Americans. Nevertheless, the century-long Palestinian-Zionist conflict is a story of two peoples, each with reasonable claims to the same piece of earth; and nearly every aspect of that story suggests that in the endand to the detriment of those peoples, their region, and perhaps the entire worldtheir aspirations are not amenable to compromise.
Click to expand...

Israeli-American Nobel winner doubts Israel's long-term survival - News Israel News | Haaretz

Professor Robert (Yisrael) Aumann, the Israeli-American scholar who won the Nobel Prize for economics last year, said this week that Israel may not be capable of continuing to exist in the long-term. 

"Too many Jews don't understand why they are here," said Aumann, who moved from the United States to Israel in the 1950s and helped found the Center for Rationality at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an interdisciplinary research body that focuses on game theory. 

"If we don't understand why we are here, and that we are not America or just a place in which to live, we will not survive," he said in a speech at the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel on Sunday. "The desire to live like all the nations will sustain us maybe another 50 years, if we are still here."


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goebbels was a ZioNazi... both Zionist and Nazi?... well waddya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...
Click to expand...


That was a Limp retort, you know exactly what I meant and said...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
> 
> 
> 
> Goebbels was a ZioNazi... both Zionist and Nazi?... well waddya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a Limp retort, you know exactly what I meant and said...
Click to expand...

Bingo... a 'limp retort' is exactly the right level of sophistication, to accommodate a 'limp original'. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




No extra charge.


----------



## MHunterB

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, this guy is not the ZioNazi Goebbels...
> 
> 
> 
> Goebbels was a ZioNazi... both Zionist and Nazi?... well waddya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a Limp retort, you know exactly what I meant and said...
Click to expand...


Yup:  you meant and said something stupid, ignorant AND bigoted all at once.  'Tis your idiom, after all.......


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toast, it is very obvious that the Arab Nation is not ready to do anything serious for many years to come...If Israel retains E. Jerusalem and continues to occupy and annex land there is nothing to do except terrorism to Israel and the West...
> 
> All of the ME Economies are feudalistic, no banks, no upward mobility for the people...Thus the Arab Awakening.
> 
> In time as things get sorted out, the kings and dictators will be gone. Saudi Arabia paid for all of Pakistan's nukes with oil money.
> 
> When the Revolutions are over(20-50 years, ME Economies will develop...Because of the sheer size i.e. populations within a short time they will be able to afford Armament parrity.
> 
> If hate still exists because of conflict, this area needs a tiny spark to end it. That's what's coming without a peace deal and acceptance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If granny had had cajones she would've been gramps instead.
> As always your conclusions are the result of assumptions and suppositions which are baseless, self-serving, wishful thinking.
> Garbage in = garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly Sniffer you have no nose for political science and economic development.
Click to expand...


As always your nose for reality is congested.
I worked for the US, often in the Mideast, on economic development.
I'm happy to see you have grown beyond the village idiot you once were - it wasn't that long ago that your writing (and reasoning) was at the middle school level. 
Your rationality still needs a ton of work.


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goebbels was a ZioNazi... both Zionist and Nazi?... well waddya know... ya learn sumfin' new every day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a Limp retort, you know exactly what I meant and said...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup:  you meant and said something stupid, ignorant AND bigoted all at once.  'Tis your idiom, after all.......
Click to expand...


Marg, I'm no bigot, how can you defend these words from Phoenall? Sure sounds like a Goebbels to me...There are many Zionists who offer solutions akin to Nazis...Murder with a silent klick sounds Nazi-like don't you at least agree to that?

Phoenall: Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> If granny had had cajones she would've been gramps instead.
> As always your conclusions are the result of assumptions and suppositions which are baseless, self-serving, wishful thinking.
> Garbage in = garbage out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Sniffer you have no nose for political science and economic development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always your nose for reality is congested.
> I worked for the US, often in the Mideast, on economic development.
> I'm happy to see you have grown beyond the village idiot you once were - it wasn't that long ago that your writing (and reasoning) was at the middle school level.
> Your rationality still needs a ton of work.
Click to expand...


Ya, Sniff, I suddenly became smart...If you worked in Economic Development then you very well know that once the Arabs rid themselves of their Feudalistic Economies, Armament Parity will follow... Israel needs a peace deal more than the Arabs.

Agreed?


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Sniffer you have no nose for political science and economic development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always your nose for reality is congested.
> I worked for the US, often in the Mideast, on economic development.
> I'm happy to see you have grown beyond the village idiot you once were - it wasn't that long ago that your writing (and reasoning) was at the middle school level.
> Your rationality still needs a ton of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, Sniff, I suddenly became smart...If you worked in Economic Development then you very well know that once the Arabs rid themselves of their Feudalistic Economies, Armament Parity will follow... Israel needs a peace deal more than the Arabs.
> 
> Agreed?
Click to expand...


Had you had the ability to read and understand my posts, you would recall I often posted not only that good trading partners make the best neighbors but that Jordan and Israel were quietly building those bridges ... both literally and symbolically. In the ensuing years other neighbors have quietly followed suit. The problem, of course, is the politics. They can't be seen by the "Arab Street" as cooperating with the "Zionist Entity." 
It was my mission to plant those seeds.
BTW, I neither said nor implied that you are smart ... you're just not the idiot you once were. Congrats!


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always your nose for reality is congested.
> I worked for the US, often in the Mideast, on economic development.
> I'm happy to see you have grown beyond the village idiot you once were - it wasn't that long ago that your writing (and reasoning) was at the middle school level.
> Your rationality still needs a ton of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, Sniff, I suddenly became smart...If you worked in Economic Development then you very well know that once the Arabs rid themselves of their Feudalistic Economies, Armament Parity will follow... Israel needs a peace deal more than the Arabs.
> 
> Agreed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you had the ability to read and understand my posts, you would recall I often posted not only that good trading partners make the best neighbors but that Jordan and Israel were quietly building those bridges ... both literally and symbolically. In the ensuing years other neighbors have quietly followed suit. The problem, of course, is the politics. They can't be seen by the "Arab Street" as cooperating with the "Zionist Entity."
> It was my mission to plant those seeds.
> BTW, I neither said nor implied that you are smart ... you're just not the idiot you once were. Congrats!
Click to expand...


Well , you haven't changed much...The same misanthrope who will lie for Israel well beyond the logic you now admit by repeating what I've been saying all along

I'd rather be a village idiot than a hateful snake. No offense..


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a Limp retort, you know exactly what I meant and said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup:  you meant and said something stupid, ignorant AND bigoted all at once.  'Tis your idiom, after all.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marg, I'm no bigot, how can you defend these words from Phoenall? Sure sounds like a Goebbels to me...There are many Zionists who offer solutions akin to Nazis...Murder with a silent klick sounds Nazi-like don't you at least agree to that?
> 
> Phoenall: Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
Click to expand...





 Actually it is something that the good ole USA has developed but not yet tested. And a klick is a kilometre for all but the hard of understanding and islamonazis.  As I said better informed than you ever will be, being on the edge of burgeoning RF technology. 
 Imagine being able to neutralise the enemy completely with just the press of a button, no deaths no destroyed buildings just no power or communications at all. Engines that wont start, phones that are completely dead and power stations at a standstill, and all without using a fancy expensive nuclear weapon just a radio transmitter and a divergent cone antenna.

 Isnt modern warfare just great, a completely bloodless war with no casualties, downside is the closeness of the weapon to the enemy to be effective. Why do you think the Russians and Chinese still use tube technology ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Sniffer you have no nose for political science and economic development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always your nose for reality is congested.
> I worked for the US, often in the Mideast, on economic development.
> I'm happy to see you have grown beyond the village idiot you once were - it wasn't that long ago that your writing (and reasoning) was at the middle school level.
> Your rationality still needs a ton of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, Sniff, I suddenly became smart...If you worked in Economic Development then you very well know that once the Arabs rid themselves of their Feudalistic Economies, Armament Parity will follow... Israel needs a peace deal more than the Arabs.
> 
> Agreed?
Click to expand...





 NOPE

 As the next group will be along on the next bus and so it will start all over again. And Israel just has to sit there and wait till the dust settles and pick up the pieces. We have seen it happen in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt already and everything is back to how it was.


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup:  you meant and said something stupid, ignorant AND bigoted all at once.  'Tis your idiom, after all.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marg, I'm no bigot, how can you defend these words from Phoenall? Sure sounds like a Goebbels to me...There are many Zionists who offer solutions akin to Nazis...Murder with a silent klick sounds Nazi-like don't you at least agree to that?
> 
> Phoenall: Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is something that the good ole USA has developed but not yet tested. And a klick is a kilometre for all but the hard of understanding and islamonazis.  As I said better informed than you ever will be, being on the edge of burgeoning RF technology.
> Imagine being able to neutralise the enemy completely with just the press of a button, no deaths no destroyed buildings just no power or communications at all. Engines that wont start, phones that are completely dead and power stations at a standstill, and all without using a fancy expensive nuclear weapon just a radio transmitter and a divergent cone antenna.
> 
> Isnt modern warfare just great, a completely bloodless war with no casualties, downside is the closeness of the weapon to the enemy to be effective. Why do you think the Russians and Chinese still use tube technology ?
Click to expand...


Air Force in New Mexico at Kirkland are using them


----------



## MHunterB

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a Limp retort, you know exactly what I meant and said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup:  you meant and said something stupid, ignorant AND bigoted all at once.  'Tis your idiom, after all.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marg, I'm no bigot, how can you defend these words from Phoenall? Sure sounds like a Goebbels to me...There are many Zionists who offer solutions akin to Nazis...Murder with a silent klick sounds Nazi-like don't you at least agree to that?
> 
> Phoenall: Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
Click to expand...


Pbel, please do stop trying to deny your bigotry.  I think everyone here has seen enough of your posts to know the truth. 

And trying to pin the Nazi-LIKE label on anyone else doesn't change the shit-flinging you've been doing since I arrived here.   I am beginning to suspect you really are psychotic in the actual meaning of the word, unconnected to reality.

I sincerely hope you get some help.  But I am unable to help you now.  Rest assured, though, that in the unlikely event that you ARE ever correct, I will make it known that I agree : ))


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup:  you meant and said something stupid, ignorant AND bigoted all at once.  'Tis your idiom, after all.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marg, I'm no bigot, how can you defend these words from Phoenall? Sure sounds like a Goebbels to me...There are many Zionists who offer solutions akin to Nazis...Murder with a silent klick sounds Nazi-like don't you at least agree to that?
> 
> Phoenall: Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, please do stop trying to deny your bigotry.  I think everyone here has seen enough of your posts to know the truth.
> 
> And trying to pin the Nazi-LIKE label on anyone else doesn't change the shit-flinging you've been doing since I arrived here.   I am beginning to suspect you really are psychotic in the actual meaning of the word, unconnected to reality.
> 
> I sincerely hope you get some help.  But I am unable to help you now.  Rest assured, though, that in the unlikely event that you ARE ever correct, I will make it known that I agree : ))
Click to expand...


Let's face it Marg, if anyone has a psychological abnormality, it is your obsession of time on these boards and calling everyone who disagrees with Israeli oppression of unarmed civilians an anti-Semite to the point that it has no effect or meaning.

If you looked at current world events, very few if any country on earth agrees with Israeli Policies not even America...It is not pbel that condemns her policies, but the known world, are they all anti-Semites or is it your obsessive compulsive behavior to scream out "anti-Semites" like chicken Little?


----------



## MHunterB

: ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.

Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.

Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.

Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......

Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?  

If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......

Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> : ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.
> 
> Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.
> 
> Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.
> 
> Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......
> 
> Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?
> 
> If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......
> 
> Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.



Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.

The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> : ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.
> 
> Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.
> 
> Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.
> 
> Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......
> 
> Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?
> 
> If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......
> 
> Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
Click to expand...

We Zionists swear by the Exodus, Peebles.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> : ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.
> 
> Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.
> 
> Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.
> 
> Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......
> 
> Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?
> 
> If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......
> 
> Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
Click to expand...


And Israel is now the toughest one in the neighborhood. 
As for the displacing of Palestinians, you and the Palestinians themselves can blame the surrounding Arab states, as a large majority of Palestinians became refugees during the 1948 Arab Israeli war and the 6 day war.
Whoops!! Weren't you one of those idiots who said the Arab states in 1948 were not trying to "drive the Jews to the sea", but to 'help' the Palestinians?
Some help, ay Pbel??

And now Pbel, those refugees will NEVER be allowed to return.
Double whoops!


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> : ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.
> 
> Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.
> 
> Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.
> 
> Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......
> 
> Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?
> 
> If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......
> 
> Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Israel is now the toughest one in the neighborhood.
> As for the displacing of Palestinians, you and the Palestinians themselves can blame the surrounding Arab states, as a large majority of Palestinians became refugees during the 1948 Arab Israeli war and the 6 day war.
> Whoops!! Weren't you one of those idiots who said the Arab states in 1948 were not trying to "drive the Jews to the sea", but to 'help' the Palestinians?
> Some help, ay Pbel??
> 
> And now Pbel, those refugees will NEVER be allowed to return.
> Double whoops!
Click to expand...


Hey, I can't blame you for your bravado and boasts of how tough Israel is today...It's absolutely true. It is also true that without peace Israel will eventually become exhausted, like all invaders that preceded her...Numbers toast is what drives human  dynamics, in time they will succeed.  

Peace and hope through extensive trading or isolation from humanity. Its Israel's choice.


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel is now the toughest one in the neighborhood.
> As for the displacing of Palestinians, you and the Palestinians themselves can blame the surrounding Arab states, as a large majority of Palestinians became refugees during the 1948 Arab Israeli war and the 6 day war.
> Whoops!! Weren't you one of those idiots who said the Arab states in 1948 were not trying to "drive the Jews to the sea", but to 'help' the Palestinians?
> Some help, ay Pbel??
> 
> And now Pbel, those refugees will NEVER be allowed to return.
> Double whoops!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I can't blame you for your bravado and boasts of how tough Israel is today...It's absolutely true. It is also true that without peace Israel will eventually become exhausted, like all invaders that preceded her...Numbers toast is what drives human  dynamics, in time they will succeed.
> 
> Peace and hope through extensive trading or isolation from humanity. Its Israel's choice.
Click to expand...

These days, peace is obtained thru superior firepower. That's the law now.


----------



## Sally

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> : ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.
> 
> Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.
> 
> Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.
> 
> Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......
> 
> Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?
> 
> If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......
> 
> Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We Zionists swear by the Exodus, Peebles.
Click to expand...


So many atrocities are happening to Arabs in the other Middle East countries, and yet Pbel doesn't seem at all interested (nor has he ever been) in what is befalling so many innocent Arabs, both Muslims and Christians alike, in places like Syria and Iraq.  He has only been obsessed with Israel/Palestine, and I think by now most people have figured out why.


----------



## MHunterB

Way to avoid any real discussion of anything resembling the topic, l'il pbel........  I didn't like your 'poetry' because it offended me to see someone bowdlerizing Dante.  And all for a petty online vendetta he chooses to pursue year after year even against posters who aren't on this site.

The Land of Israel is not 'the Arabs' turf' - any responsible Muslim would explain to you that the world is YHVH's/Allah's AND acknowledge that He gave us the deed to that one tiny corner of it.  If you read the original text, YHVH instructs Joshua to avoid bothering this, that and the other local tribes because He (YHVH) has set aside certain lands for them as well.

Twenty-odd states isn't enough for my cousins the Ishmaelites?  The 'Palestinians' (aka southern Syrians) want another one - fine, they should have it.  Absolutely.  They just can't have Tel Aviv, Haifa or the Western Wall - all of which they have demanded.  

 If the greedy pigs of the AL "leadership" really gave a frog's fart about their dearly beloved Palestinian brethren - those pigs stole an area FOUR TIMES the size of Israel from my Mizrachi relatives.  Let the AL give *that* to the Palestinians.


----------



## MHunterB

"Zionism" didn't displace the poor Palestinians:  the greed of their kleptocratic "leaders" AND that of the AL "leadership" who hatched the plans to wipe out Israel back before the state was even declared did that.  They TOLD the Palestinans to leave for a couple of weeks at most, then after the five Arab armies had over-run and forced out (murdered en masse) all the Jews - they could come back and have their property PLUS .....

The fact that there are 20% + Arab Christians and Muslims who are Israeli citizens and vote and serve in the government - including the military! - argues louder than all your commotion that there is no "apartheid" or "racism" inherent in Zionism.

Would that the same could be said of "Arab Nationalism", the false god which was the excuse for plundering just under a million Mizrachi Jews from places they'd lived for up to 2600 years.........  

As long as the PLO/PA and HAMAS and Hezbullah have that filth in their Charters about killing all the Jews, they are WRONG - and supporting any of them is WRONG, too.   

If only there were some "Arab Nationalists" whose ideas were rooted in love of their people, rather than hatred for another........ then maybe there'd be peace because that does take two.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marg, I'm no bigot, how can you defend these words from Phoenall? Sure sounds like a Goebbels to me...There are many Zionists who offer solutions akin to Nazis...Murder with a silent klick sounds Nazi-like don't you at least agree to that?
> 
> Phoenall: Just better informed than you are, and will ever be. Just as I know that high powered narrow beam microwave RF is being developed that will fry a person from 1 klick. Silent invisible and no marks, the perfect weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, please do stop trying to deny your bigotry.  I think everyone here has seen enough of your posts to know the truth.
> 
> And trying to pin the Nazi-LIKE label on anyone else doesn't change the shit-flinging you've been doing since I arrived here.   I am beginning to suspect you really are psychotic in the actual meaning of the word, unconnected to reality.
> 
> I sincerely hope you get some help.  But I am unable to help you now.  Rest assured, though, that in the unlikely event that you ARE ever correct, I will make it known that I agree : ))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it Marg, if anyone has a psychological abnormality, it is your obsession of time on these boards and calling everyone who disagrees with Israeli oppression of unarmed civilians an anti-Semite to the point that it has no effect or meaning.
> 
> If you looked at current world events, very few if any country on earth agrees with Israeli Policies not even America...It is not pbel that condemns her policies, but the known world, are they all anti-Semites or is it your obsessive compulsive behavior to scream out "anti-Semites" like chicken Little?
Click to expand...




 Not very good at deflection are you, going from your problem with reality to an all out attack on Israel. 
 Nice try wont fly


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> : ))  LOL.  I'm not the one who's several times posted bowdlerized versions of Dante to seek to harass other posters.
> 
> Nor am I one of those whining wankers who went about from thread to thread to disrupt threads simply because someone they'd taken a dislike to was posting there.
> 
> Nor did I opt out of the rep system and make many posts about how other posters has allegedly colluded against me.
> 
> Let's face it, Pbel - you are the one who's obsessed.  And you are also lying.  Now wipe your sniveling little nose, and make some posts on the actual topic of this thread already.   Something that's not rife with logic errors like the 'appeal to numbers' drivel .......
> 
> Since when do sovereign nations have to check their internal policies with the US or anyone else?
> 
> If you'd even once complained about KSA *outlawing* any religion other than Islam, not allowing women to drive, etc, etc - or condemned the Arab League nations for their conspiracy to despoil and eject their Jewish citizenry en masse - or expressed disgust at the murder and enslavement of fellow citizens by the Sudanese Muslim militias - then you MIGHT have some hope of being taken seriously when you piss and moan about Israel's government......
> 
> Your "concern" is so exclusively one-sided, it cannot be taken seriously or considered honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
Click to expand...





 The Jews didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them

 The British didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them

 The French didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them

 The Swedes didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them

 The Sudanese didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them

 The Indians did not ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them

 SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN BRINGING UP ZIONISTS ALL THE TIME


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> The Jews didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The British didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The French didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The Swedes didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The Sudanese didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The Indians did not ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN BRINGING UP ZIONISTS ALL THE TIME


What's your point posting pithy little phrases that mean nothing at all?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, poor Marg didn't like my poem because it pointed out Israeli brutalities supported by posters like her...You complain about Muslims world-wide because of your bigotry born with the creation of a Zionist State out of Arab Lands.
> 
> The Arabs didn't ask Zionism to displace them. You live on their turf and its a tough neighborhood that you chose. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is about Right and Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel is now the toughest one in the neighborhood.
> As for the displacing of Palestinians, you and the Palestinians themselves can blame the surrounding Arab states, as a large majority of Palestinians became refugees during the 1948 Arab Israeli war and the 6 day war.
> Whoops!! Weren't you one of those idiots who said the Arab states in 1948 were not trying to "drive the Jews to the sea", but to 'help' the Palestinians?
> Some help, ay Pbel??
> 
> And now Pbel, those refugees will NEVER be allowed to return.
> Double whoops!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I can't blame you for your bravado and boasts of how tough Israel is today...It's absolutely true. It is also true that without peace Israel will eventually become exhausted, like all invaders that preceded her...Numbers toast is what drives human  dynamics, in time they will succeed.
> 
> Peace and hope through extensive trading or isolation from humanity. Its Israel's choice.
Click to expand...





With your version of peace Israel's demise would come much sooner, which is why they will not give in to threats. But the muslims are spending far too much energy and time in fighting each other for control. Then starting all over again when the next group of extremists comes along. So the numbers of sick and tired muslims rises every day and no one is there to protect them from their own. Their numbers are dwindling daily with millions being brutally slain and starved to death, and not a Jew in sight doing it. The world is seeing islam at its worst and thinking what the hell are we supporting these animals for.   
 So all Israel has to do is keep quiet and sit back letting the Islamic extremists wipe themselves out and then offer help to the survivors. They already have extensive trading deals with many Islamic nations so are quite happy as it is.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The British didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The French didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The Swedes didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The Sudanese didn't ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> The Indians did not ask the muslims to displace and brutalise them
> 
> SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN BRINGING UP ZIONISTS ALL THE TIME
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point posting pithy little phrases that mean nothing at all?
Click to expand...





 Don't like seeing the truth about your hero's the muslims and their brutality in taking over the world . Over 1,000 very young girls have been raped and forced into prostitution in the UK by muslim men, by very young I mean 11 and 12 year olds. How muslims are the real problem in the world and displace indigenous populations by violent means and then institute apartheid and oppression. 
 IT IS NOT IARAEL DOING THIS BUT ISLAM.


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> "Zionism" didn't displace the poor Palestinians:  the greed of their kleptocratic "leaders" AND that of the AL "leadership" who hatched the plans to wipe out Israel back before the state was even declared did that.  They TOLD the Palestinans to leave for a couple of weeks at most, then after the five Arab armies had over-run and forced out (murdered en masse) all the Jews - they could come back and have their property PLUS .....
> 
> The fact that there are 20% + Arab Christians and Muslims who are Israeli citizens and vote and serve in the government - including the military! - argues louder than all your commotion that there is no "apartheid" or "racism" inherent in Zionism.
> 
> Would that the same could be said of "Arab Nationalism", the false god which was the excuse for plundering just under a million Mizrachi Jews from places they'd lived for up to 2600 years.........
> 
> As long as the PLO/PA and HAMAS and Hezbullah have that filth in their Charters about killing all the Jews, they are WRONG - and supporting any of them is WRONG, too.
> 
> If only there were some "Arab Nationalists" whose ideas were rooted in love of their people, rather than hatred for another........ then maybe there'd be peace because that does take two.



Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...

Your lying will not change the Historical facts. Nor will it save Israel in the long run unless the Arab league accepts her presence.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Zionism" didn't displace the poor Palestinians:  the greed of their kleptocratic "leaders" AND that of the AL "leadership" who hatched the plans to wipe out Israel back before the state was even declared did that.  They TOLD the Palestinans to leave for a couple of weeks at most, then after the five Arab armies had over-run and forced out (murdered en masse) all the Jews - they could come back and have their property PLUS .....
> 
> The fact that there are 20% + Arab Christians and Muslims who are Israeli citizens and vote and serve in the government - including the military! - argues louder than all your commotion that there is no "apartheid" or "racism" inherent in Zionism.
> 
> Would that the same could be said of "Arab Nationalism", the false god which was the excuse for plundering just under a million Mizrachi Jews from places they'd lived for up to 2600 years.........
> 
> As long as the PLO/PA and HAMAS and Hezbullah have that filth in their Charters about killing all the Jews, they are WRONG - and supporting any of them is WRONG, too.
> 
> If only there were some "Arab Nationalists" whose ideas were rooted in love of their people, rather than hatred for another........ then maybe there'd be peace because that does take two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...
> 
> Your lying will not change the Historical facts. Nor will it save Israel in the long run unless the Arab league accepts her presence.
Click to expand...


Nothing will make the Arab league her presence. 
Also, Israel will NEVER succumb to the demands of others in order to be accepted by them. 
Not to mention, they didn't accept Israel even before she took over the West Bank


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

Oh I wouldn't say that!



pbel said:


> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...


*(COMMENT)*

The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.

The oil routes had nothing to do with it.  That is what our friend "PF_Tinmore" calls a "Red Herring."  At the time the decisions on the establishment of the Jewish Nation Home were being made, the oil corridors were not all that much different then they are now.





Expand Image​
Notice that the Mandate for Palestine doesn't have access to any of them.  The only oil infrastructure, until the opening of the Levant Oil and Gas Basin (2001), prior to the establishment of the Jewish State, is the Haifa Oil Refinery.  All the other Middle East Nations had assets equal to or greater than the single refinery in Haifa.



pbel said:


> Your lying will not change the Historical facts. Nor will it save Israel in the long run unless the Arab league accepts her presence.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab League has consistently opposed the establishment of the Jewish State as agreed to by the adoption of GA/RES/181(II).  The Arab League is eventually going to reach a conclusion that the Palestinian Cause is not the center of the issues it faces in terms of regional peace and stability.  And as countries like Saudi Arabia begin to feel the economic pinch in the revenue generated by their oil reserves, they are going to find out that attempting to support unproductive ventures like Palestine are going to become too expensive.  The new hot spot in the Middle East is Syria.  And Arab League attention will be diverted away from Palestine and more towards Damascus.

Israel, for all the complaints made against her --- and for all the mistakes she has made --- has been able to maintain a marginal environment of peace and stability --- even in the face of the degenerative effects of the hostile Arab Spring.  

One needs only look at the Arab World to see the need for peace and stability:



And buried in that mess is the Jewish State of Israel; still productive and still economically advancing.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
Click to expand...

So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.

Well then, that makes it OK.



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Don't like seeing the truth about your hero's the muslims and their brutality in taking over the world . Over 1,000 very young girls have been raped and forced into prostitution in the UK by muslim men, by very young I mean 11 and 12 year olds. How muslims are the real problem in the world and displace indigenous populations by violent means and then institute apartheid and oppression.
> IT IS NOT IARAEL DOING THIS BUT ISLAM.


If it is so prevalent, then you should have no trouble providing evidence to back up those claims.

If you can't, then you're just another racist asshole, shooting his big mouth off!


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You win a seegar, Tinny!


----------



## MrMax

*I will not Bow!*

Said the arab just before he bent over to kiss a carpet.


----------



## pbel

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Rocco always forgets that part because might makes right then history corrects that mistake in time...Always has always will...


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco always forgets that part because might makes right then history corrects that mistake in time...Always has always will...
Click to expand...

You win a seegar too, Peebles. Go have a smoke with Tinmore.


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_

I think you got it! 



			
				History - A Question of Palestine said:
			
		

> Among the issues that the Mandatory Power had to deal with, particularly after the end of the Second World War, was the question of a proposed Jewish home in Palestine.  Increasing Jewish immigration had been consistently opposed by the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who in the mid-1940s comprised about two thirds of the territorys population of 2 million.
> 
> *EPILOG:* This revised edition of The Question of Palestine and the United Nations reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "Zionist" did not recruit the assistance of any "Colonial Powers."  The "Allied Powers" made the determination that it was in the best interest  to the protection of the Jewish Culture.

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land*, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."  (Article 4, San Remo Convention).

It wasn't an invasion, but an agreement decided on 24 April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers in "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations."  Does that make it "OK?"  Yes sir-ree _(three bags full)_!

As previously stated, some years later, the UN adopted General Assembly in 1947 of Resolution 181 (II), which gave the Jewish State form and substance.  The Arab Higher Committee declined to participate.

Thus, following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly, Israel reached the point to Declare such Independence.

It was the foreign intervention and influence of the Arab League that created the subsequence belligerent behaviors that lead us to the current ground truth. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History - A Question of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the issues that the Mandatory Power had to deal with, particularly after the end of the Second World War, was the question of a proposed Jewish home in Palestine.  Increasing Jewish immigration had been consistently opposed by the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who in the mid-1940s comprised about two thirds of the territorys population of 2 million.
> 
> *EPILOG:* This revised edition of The Question of Palestine and the United Nations reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionist" did not recruit the assistance of any "Colonial Powers."  The "Allied Powers" made the determination that it was in the best interest  to the protection of the Jewish Culture.
> 
> "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land*, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."  (Article 4, San Remo Convention).
> 
> It wasn't an invasion, but an agreement decided on 24 April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers in "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations."  Does that make it "OK?"  Yes sir-ree _(three bags full)_!
> 
> As previously stated, some years later, the UN adopted General Assembly in 1947 of Resolution 181 (II), which gave the Jewish State form and substance.  The Arab Higher Committee declined to participate.
> 
> Thus, following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly, Israel reached the point to Declare such Independence.
> 
> It was the foreign intervention and influence of the Arab League that created the subsequence belligerent behaviors that lead us to the current ground truth.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are a hoot, Rocco.

What ever happened to the right to self determination *without external interference?*

The only thing you post is what *foreigners did.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists invaded the land and displaced people who were living there in peace for a millennia...Your trying to sugar coat that invasion with the support of the Colonial West to use Israel as an out post to protect the oil routes is now exhausted...
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 Do you mean like the arab muslims did so they could invade Palestine and take the land from the Palestinians ?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like seeing the truth about your hero's the muslims and their brutality in taking over the world . Over 1,000 very young girls have been raped and forced into prostitution in the UK by muslim men, by very young I mean 11 and 12 year olds. How muslims are the real problem in the world and displace indigenous populations by violent means and then institute apartheid and oppression.
> IT IS NOT IARAEL DOING THIS BUT ISLAM.
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so prevalent, then you should have no trouble providing evidence to back up those claims.
> 
> If you can't, then you're just another racist asshole, shooting his big mouth off!
Click to expand...




 Do you mean like this shit for brains

MUSLIM GROOMING / PAEDO MAP | Kafir Crusaders

Child sex slave gangs in EVERY city in Britain: Thames Valley Police chief's warning after Oxford grooming horror - Mirror Online

» 500 Muslim Sex Grooming Cases In 6 Months


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco always forgets that part because might makes right then history corrects that mistake in time...Always has always will...
Click to expand...





 Just as you always forget the mass arab muslim immigration into Palestine prior to 1948, and how the arab league forced Britain to block Jewish immigration demanded by the mandate


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History - A Question of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the issues that the Mandatory Power had to deal with, particularly after the end of the Second World War, was the question of a proposed Jewish home in Palestine.  Increasing Jewish immigration had been consistently opposed by the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who in the mid-1940s comprised about two thirds of the territorys population of 2 million.
> 
> *EPILOG:* This revised edition of The Question of Palestine and the United Nations reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionist" did not recruit the assistance of any "Colonial Powers."  The "Allied Powers" made the determination that it was in the best interest  to the protection of the Jewish Culture.
> 
> "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land*, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."  (Article 4, San Remo Convention).
> 
> It wasn't an invasion, but an agreement decided on 24 April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers in "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations."  Does that make it "OK?"  Yes sir-ree _(three bags full)_!
> 
> As previously stated, some years later, the UN adopted General Assembly in 1947 of Resolution 181 (II), which gave the Jewish State form and substance.  The Arab Higher Committee declined to participate.
> 
> Thus, following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly, Israel reached the point to Declare such Independence.
> 
> It was the foreign intervention and influence of the Arab League that created the subsequence belligerent behaviors that lead us to the current ground truth.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a hoot, Rocco.
> 
> What ever happened to the right to self determination *without external interference?*
> 
> The only thing you post is what *foreigners did.*
Click to expand...


Actually Tinmore, it is YOU who is a hoot. You didn't refute one thing that Rocco said. 
What does it matter what foreigners did?? It's not like Palestine belonged to the Palestinian Arabs or anything. Forgot about that little fact now did you?


----------



## toastman

Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well. 
Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well.
> Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.


I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History - A Question of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the issues that the Mandatory Power had to deal with, particularly after the end of the Second World War, was the question of a proposed Jewish home in Palestine.  Increasing Jewish immigration had been consistently opposed by the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who in the mid-1940s comprised about two thirds of the territorys population of 2 million.
> 
> *EPILOG:* This revised edition of The Question of Palestine and the United Nations reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I wouldn't say that!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionists" did not invade the land.  It was earmarked as the Jewish National Home by the Allied Powers, in which immigration was a natural first step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionist" did not recruit the assistance of any "Colonial Powers."  The "Allied Powers" made the determination that it was in the best interest  to the protection of the Jewish Culture.
> 
> "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land*, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."  (Article 4, San Remo Convention).
> 
> It wasn't an invasion, but an agreement decided on 24 April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers in "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations."  Does that make it "OK?"  Yes sir-ree _(three bags full)_!
> 
> As previously stated, some years later, the UN adopted General Assembly in 1947 of Resolution 181 (II), which gave the Jewish State form and substance.  The Arab Higher Committee declined to participate.
> 
> Thus, following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly, Israel reached the point to Declare such Independence.
> 
> It was the foreign intervention and influence of the Arab League that created the subsequence belligerent behaviors that lead us to the current ground truth.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Whoopi Doo!!! The very same Powers that refused Jewish refugees, turning away the EXODUS, using Power of Might to solve the problem they created into the midst of harms way onto someone else's land....

Let's root for Russia in Crimea, won't we?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

The "without external interference" clause doesn't apply to "outside her (Turkish) frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers" (Part III, Section XIII, Treaty of Sevres) or the territory "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey" (Part I, Section I, Treaty of Lausanne); or "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."



P F Tinmore said:


> You are a hoot, Rocco.
> 
> What ever happened to the right to self determination *without external interference?*
> 
> The only thing you post is what *foreigners did.*


*(COMMENT)*

In the most lame sense, the Allied Powers, being alien to this described territory, which includes present day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the 1988 Palestine, and Iraq, could be considered "foreigners" to the layman.  But in reality, the Allied Powers assumed _(in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations)_ all the sovereign powers forfeited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Government having previously maintained sovereignty for 6 Centuries.  It was the Allied Powers that impressed the protections of civil and religious rights over the indigenous populations.  And it was the Allied Powers that stipulated what those rights were, just as the UN has done and refined over the last half century.

The Allied Powers were no more "foreigners" than the Sultan, or General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of the Republic of Turkey.   

*(SIDEBAR)*

Most Palestinian Land Owners, at the time of the Mandate of Palestine, owed their ownership to the 1858 land reform legislation, by the Ottoman Government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> pbel,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History - A Question of Palestine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the issues that the Mandatory Power had to deal with, particularly after the end of the Second World War, was the question of a proposed Jewish home in Palestine.  Increasing Jewish immigration had been consistently opposed by the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who in the mid-1940s comprised about two thirds of the territorys population of 2 million.
> 
> *EPILOG:* This revised edition of The Question of Palestine and the United Nations reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Zionists recruited the assistance of colonial powers to invade and take over Palestine.
> 
> Well then, that makes it OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "Zionist" did not recruit the assistance of any "Colonial Powers."  The "Allied Powers" made the determination that it was in the best interest  to the protection of the Jewish Culture.
> 
> "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, *shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land*, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."  (Article 4, San Remo Convention).
> 
> It wasn't an invasion, but an agreement decided on 24 April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers in "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations."  Does that make it "OK?"  Yes sir-ree _(three bags full)_!
> 
> As previously stated, some years later, the UN adopted General Assembly in 1947 of Resolution 181 (II), which gave the Jewish State form and substance.  The Arab Higher Committee declined to participate.
> 
> Thus, following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the UN General Assembly, Israel reached the point to Declare such Independence.
> 
> It was the foreign intervention and influence of the Arab League that created the subsequence belligerent behaviors that lead us to the current ground truth.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a hoot, Rocco.
> 
> What ever happened to the right to self determination *without external interference?*
> 
> The only thing you post is what *foreigners did.*
Click to expand...





 And the only people that interfered with their right of self determination were the arab league. The Mandated powers didn't interfere at all as they allowed the arab muslims to flood the country with iilegal immigrants. They did interfere with the Jews right of free determination by breaching the rules of the mandate when they blocked the Jews from migrating to Palestine.


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well.
> Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?
Click to expand...


We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> The "without external interference" clause doesn't apply to "outside her (Turkish) frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers" (Part III, Section XIII, Treaty of Sevres) or the territory "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey" (Part I, Section I, Treaty of Lausanne); or "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."


More smoke, Rocco?

The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.



> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hoot, Rocco.
> 
> What ever happened to the right to self determination *without external interference?*
> 
> The only thing you post is what *foreigners did.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the most lame sense, the Allied Powers, being alien to this described territory, which includes present day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the 1988 Palestine, and Iraq, could be considered "foreigners" to the layman.  But in reality, the Allied Powers assumed _(in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations)_ all the sovereign powers forfeited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Government having previously maintained sovereignty for 6 Centuries.
Click to expand...

Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*

A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?



> * SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.*
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
> 
> Lausanne Treaty: Part I





> It was the Allied Powers that impressed the protections of civil and religious rights over the indigenous populations.  And it was the Allied Powers that *stipulated what those rights were, just as the UN has done and refined over the last half century.*



Indeed.



> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237





> The Allied Powers were no more "foreigners" than the Sultan, or General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of the Republic of Turkey.
> 
> *(SIDEBAR)*
> 
> Most Palestinian Land Owners, at the time of the Mandate of Palestine, owed their ownership to the 1858 land reform legislation, by the Ottoman Government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## toastman

Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
> You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.



So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?


----------



## MHunterB

Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....

I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.

Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
> You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?
Click to expand...


You should be thanking him, not criticizing him for all he's taught you. He obviously puts effort in his posts


----------



## MHunterB

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
> You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?
Click to expand...


He didn't:  you are persistently seeking to derail this thread and indulge in your usual rants against anyone who doesn't share your completely one-sided view.  It's boring and predictable.....


----------



## MHunterB

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
> You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be thanking him, not criticizing him for all he's taught you. He obviously puts effort in his posts
Click to expand...


Very true:  Rocco makes a notable effort to be accurate and thorough. He also assiduously avoids the name-calling and snide insults which are a perennial irritation around here......


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....
> 
> I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.
> 
> Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.



*Not true!*

I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.

It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MHunterB said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be thanking him, not criticizing him for all he's taught you. He obviously puts effort in his posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true:  Rocco makes a notable effort to be accurate and thorough. He also assiduously avoids the name-calling and snide insults which are a perennial irritation around here......
Click to expand...


Indeed, Rocco brings value to this board. I have personally gained from his posts.

Unlike those who just call names, throw stones, and give out negative reps.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....
> 
> I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.
> 
> Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true!*
> 
> I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.
> 
> It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.
Click to expand...

If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well.
> Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.
Click to expand...

What do the Jews have to do with any of those things except being victims in the Mid-East?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....
> 
> I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.
> 
> Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true!*
> 
> I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.
> 
> It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.
Click to expand...


But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true!*
> 
> I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.
> 
> It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.
> 
> 
> 
> If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?
Click to expand...

Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.

Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.
> 
> Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.
Click to expand...


That's not going to happen. It's the Palestinians who were on the losing side of all the wars that they participated it.

Personally guys, I don't think there will ever be a solution with this conflict. Which of course, is way worse for the Palestinians than for Israel. Unless the civilians make peace with each other.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do the Jews have to do with any of those things except being victims in the Mid-East?
Click to expand...


The Boston Marathon bombings?  Come on!  The terrorists' own uncle said that his nephews became terrorists because they were losers in Life and couldn't get themselves settled.  He knew them better than you.  I think I'll take his word for it.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that...
Click to expand...

Which is why they must be driven out rather than negotiated with.



> ...Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.


There we go with that Alternate Reality again.


----------



## montelatici

Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens.  Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens.  Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.



But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens.  Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?
Click to expand...


Which country would that be?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore; toastman; MrMax;  _et al,_

Surrender is not an issue at all.  It is not something for either side to consider.



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.
> 
> Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not going to happen. It's the Palestinians who were on the losing side of all the wars that they participated it.
> 
> Personally guys, I don't think there will ever be a solution with this conflict. Which of course, is way worse for the Palestinians than for Israel. Unless the civilians make peace with each other.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There any number of solution to the political equation at the center of the Israel-Palestinian dispute.  Most of the solutions will deal with the negotiate compromise to the various civil claim settlements, restitutions for death and damages, reparations over terrorist actions and conflict costs, peaceful agreements in neighboring, and territorial resolutions.  There is one solution that has no such outcomes; and that is the settlement through the erosion of time.

The current Palestinian position is one of an acquired solution through the erosion of time.  That is, never contributing to the creation of an environment conducive to a negotiated settlement through peaceful means.  This is the fundamental premise behind the concepts embedded in the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) philosophy:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
The idea that "initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors," and "the Partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time," amplify the temporal nature of the Palestinian demands.  

In this regard, it is the HoAP that seeks, as a matter of policy, a negative outcome to the current peace negotiations as a strategy of --- "by whatever means."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens.  Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which country would that be?
Click to expand...


The president of the Sudan said he doesn't want Christians or any Black tribes in his country.  Many of those who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that they didn't want any more Christian Copts in their country.  Let's face it.  You are not interested in what is happening elsehwere.  You are obsessed with demonizing Israel and the jews.


----------



## montelatici

No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.  Since an equitable agreement will require the establishment of a sovreign state for non-Jews, there will never be such an agreement, as the Israelis in power want control over the whole of Palestine.  If you haven't figured that out yet, you are a bit dim.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which country would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The president of the Sudan said he doesn't want Christians or any Black tribes in his country.  Many of those who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that they didn't want any more Christian Copts in their country.  Let's face it.  You are not interested in what is happening elsehwere.  You are obsessed with demonizing Israel and the jews.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with Palestine?  If Belgium decided it did not want any Germans in Belgium, what would that have to do with German speakers in Italy, e.g. Sud Tirol?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici;  _et al,_

I guess I'm having a senior moment.



montelatici said:


> No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.


*(COMMENT)* 

Who decides what is an "equitable agreement?"  The key is reasonable compromise.



montelatici said:


> Since an equitable agreement will require the establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews, there will never be such an agreement, as the Israelis in power want control over the whole of Palestine.  If you haven't figured that out yet, you are a bit dim.


*(COMMENT)*

"The establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews" was set forth by the General Assembly adoption of Resolution 181(II) in Part II Section "A" describing the "Arab State."  However this was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) at the direction of the Arab League. 

Maybe I'm confused.  



			
				Palestine National Charter of 1968 said:
			
		

> Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Palestine National Charter of 1968 Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine



It seems to me that it is the Palestinians that "want control over the whole of Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which country would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The president of the Sudan said he doesn't want Christians or any Black tribes in his country.  Many of those who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that they didn't want any more Christian Copts in their country.  Let's face it.  You are not interested in what is happening elsehwere.  You are obsessed with demonizing Israel and the jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Palestine?  If Belgium decided it did not want any Germans in Belgium, what would that have to do with German speakers in Italy, e.g. Sud Tirol?
Click to expand...


Give it a rest.  Millions and millions of people have been displaced by war and have gotten on with their lives thousands of miles from their original homes.  It is only the so-called Palestinians who are clamoring to be let back in, not only them but all their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren who weren't even born there.  Even today, the U.S., Canada and Europe are taking in refugees from many different countries, and I don't think these modern-day refugees are clamoring to go back to their countries.  Somehow they learn to make a life in their new country.

Articles: The Myth of the Palestinian 'Refugee Camps'


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well.
> Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.
Click to expand...





 Your proof of that is what exactly, as those episodes were used as excuses by islam and were not the reasons behind the attacks. The only reason for the attacks was their religious beliefs and extremist views of the world


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> The "without external interference" clause doesn't apply to "outside her (Turkish) frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers" (Part III, Section XIII, Treaty of Sevres) or the territory "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey" (Part I, Section I, Treaty of Lausanne); or "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the most lame sense, the Allied Powers, being alien to this described territory, which includes present day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the 1988 Palestine, and Iraq, could be considered "foreigners" to the layman.  But in reality, the Allied Powers assumed _(in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations)_ all the sovereign powers forfeited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Government having previously maintained sovereignty for 6 Centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers were no more "foreigners" than the Sultan, or General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of the Republic of Turkey.
> 
> *(SIDEBAR)*
> 
> Most Palestinian Land Owners, at the time of the Mandate of Palestine, owed their ownership to the 1858 land reform legislation, by the Ottoman Government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own


 The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers. 

 As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.

 They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.

 And if they had no homes then were do they go

 Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
> You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?
Click to expand...





 It is only irrelevant to you because it destroys parts of your argument, which has been commented on before your claims of irrefutable evidence being irrelevant.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....
> 
> I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.
> 
> Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true!*
> 
> I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.
> 
> It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.
Click to expand...






 There would not be a "Palestine refugee" problem if the arab states followed International Law and Humanitarian Law and provided the refugees with citizenship. The fault lies with the arab states that still keep the refugees in prison camps with no running water, sewage or medical access.


----------



## Phoenall

p f tinmore said:


> mrmax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p f tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *not true!*
> 
> i have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the jews.
> 
> It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the palestinian refugee problem.
> 
> 
> 
> if palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?
Click to expand...






 define what you mean by home ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.
> 
> Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.
Click to expand...





 Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens.  Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.






 Israel does not need to drive them out as they are doing a better job than Israel ever could themselves. Very soon the people will rise up against the extremists and start another murderfest of hamas leaders. This will result in a decline in the population that can not be blamed on the Jews, and will eventually result in the people agreeing to peace. It is the muslims that want the infidel free area so they can do as they please. Rape, murder, torture, barbarism and cannibalism spring to mind.................


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens.  Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which country would that be?
Click to expand...




 ALL OF THEM as it says in the Koran "strike of their hands and feet until there is only islam left"


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.  Since an equitable agreement will require the establishment of a sovreign state for non-Jews, there will never be such an agreement, as the Israelis in power want control over the whole of Palestine.  If you haven't figured that out yet, you are a bit dim.






 You forget negotiations are not one sided, so if the P.A. refuse to negotiate then Israel can do nothing to sort the problem herself. By the way there is already a sovereign state for the Palestinians, that has an elected governing body and a paramilitary police force. It is the arabs that want power and control over the whole of Palestine as shown by their various charters. If you cant see that from the evidence in front of your eyes then you are not just dim but incredibly stupid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> The "without external interference" clause doesn't apply to "outside her (Turkish) frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers" (Part III, Section XIII, Treaty of Sevres) or the territory "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey" (Part I, Section I, Treaty of Lausanne); or "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers were no more "foreigners" than the Sultan, or General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of the Republic of Turkey.
> 
> *(SIDEBAR)*
> 
> Most Palestinian Land Owners, at the time of the Mandate of Palestine, owed their ownership to the 1858 land reform legislation, by the Ottoman Government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
Click to expand...




> *And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate,*



Where did you get that lie?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici;  _et al,_
> 
> I guess I'm having a senior moment.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who decides what is an "equitable agreement?"  The key is reasonable compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since an equitable agreement will require the establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews, there will never be such an agreement, as the Israelis in power want control over the whole of Palestine.  If you haven't figured that out yet, you are a bit dim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "The establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews" was set forth by the General Assembly adoption of Resolution 181(II) in Part II Section "A" describing the "Arab State."  However this was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) at the direction of the Arab League.
> 
> Maybe I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine National Charter of 1968 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Palestine National Charter of 1968 Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it is the Palestinians that "want control over the whole of Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. During the British Mandate in Palestine, children from Najd attended school in the nearby village of Simsim.
> 
> Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, in 1596, Najd formed part nahiya (subdistrict) of Gaza under the liwa' (district) of Gaza with a population of 215. It paid taxes on a number of crops, including wheat, barley and fruit, as well as on goats, beehives and vineyards.[8]
> 
> Cultivated lands in the village in 1944-45 included a total of 10 dunums allocated for citrus and bananas and 11,916 dunums for cereals. An additional 511 dunums were irrigated or used for orchards. The population at this time was 620.[12][15]
> 
> On 13 May 1948,  (before the start of the 1948 war) Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What rights do these people have?

What compromises should they make?


----------



## MrMax

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians are not the surrender type*. You have to admire them for that.
> 
> Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians have already surrendered by being so weak and incapable of doing anything to hurt Israel, and the sooner they realize that they've already given up, the faster they can all move on with their lives and live in peace and prosper.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

MrMax said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians are not the surrender type*. You have to admire them for that.
> 
> Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have already surrendered by being so weak and incapable of doing anything to hurt Israel, and the sooner they realize that they've already given up, the faster they can all move on with their lives and live in peace and prosper.
Click to expand...


But they don't realize this.  They don't use their brains.  They can't win, but are willing to martyr themselves trying.  This news footage is from last week.


----------



## MrMax

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The first image says it all: cardboard rockets!


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici;  _et al,_
> 
> I guess I'm having a senior moment.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who decides what is an "equitable agreement?"  The key is reasonable compromise.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "The establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews" was set forth by the General Assembly adoption of Resolution 181(II) in Part II Section "A" describing the "Arab State."  However this was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) at the direction of the Arab League.
> 
> Maybe I'm confused.
> 
> It seems to me that it is the Palestinians that "want control over the whole of Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. During the British Mandate in Palestine, children from Najd attended school in the nearby village of Simsim.
> 
> Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, in 1596, Najd formed part nahiya (subdistrict) of Gaza under the liwa' (district) of Gaza with a population of 215. It paid taxes on a number of crops, including wheat, barley and fruit, as well as on goats, beehives and vineyards.[8]
> 
> Cultivated lands in the village in 1944-45 included a total of 10 dunums allocated for citrus and bananas and 11,916 dunums for cereals. An additional 511 dunums were irrigated or used for orchards. The population at this time was 620.[12][15]
> 
> On 13 May 1948,  (before the start of the 1948 war) Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What rights do these people have?_...
Click to expand...


Compensation for land seized.



> _What compromises should they make?_


Take the money, once it's offered, sign a quit-claim, and leave.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> The "without external interference" clause doesn't apply to "outside her (Turkish) frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers" (Part III, Section XIII, Treaty of Sevres) or the territory "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey" (Part I, Section I, Treaty of Lausanne); or "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers were no more "foreigners" than the Sultan, or General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of the Republic of Turkey.
> 
> *(SIDEBAR)*
> 
> Most Palestinian Land Owners, at the time of the Mandate of Palestine, owed their ownership to the 1858 land reform legislation, by the Ottoman Government.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
Click to expand...



*Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*

"The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] &#8211; an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]

The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3] 

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*


It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:

"It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*

*But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

*The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*


The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate,*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get that lie?
Click to expand...





 From the LoN minutes, unless you can produce irrefutable evidence that the arab muslims had a state of their own with a ruling government and a head of state at the time the mandate came into place ?

So simple to use the LIES of an ISLAMONAZI until you are asked to substantiate his LIES from another source. Try reading the San Remo Conference notes that explain what is actually meant, same with the rest of the treaties you abuse.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici;  _et al,_
> 
> I guess I'm having a senior moment.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who decides what is an "equitable agreement?"  The key is reasonable compromise.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "The establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews" was set forth by the General Assembly adoption of Resolution 181(II) in Part II Section "A" describing the "Arab State."  However this was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) at the direction of the Arab League.
> 
> Maybe I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it is the Palestinians that "want control over the whole of Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. During the British Mandate in Palestine, children from Najd attended school in the nearby village of Simsim.
> 
> Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, in 1596, Najd formed part nahiya (subdistrict) of Gaza under the liwa' (district) of Gaza with a population of 215. It paid taxes on a number of crops, including wheat, barley and fruit, as well as on goats, beehives and vineyards.[8]
> 
> Cultivated lands in the village in 1944-45 included a total of 10 dunums allocated for citrus and bananas and 11,916 dunums for cereals. An additional 511 dunums were irrigated or used for orchards. The population at this time was 620.[12][15]
> 
> On 13 May 1948,  (before the start of the 1948 war) Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rights do these people have?
> 
> What compromises should they make?
Click to expand...



 The same as any other militia group that fought against another groups self determination.

 To lay down their arms and meet for peace talks with their neighbours as detailed in 242.


----------



## José

MrMax said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians are not the surrender type*. You have to admire them for that.
> 
> Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have already surrendered by being so weak and incapable of doing anything to hurt Israel, and *the sooner they realize that* they've already given up, the faster they can all move on with their lives and live in peace and prosper.
Click to expand...


*Hey buddy... 

Palestinians surely didn't realize their "defeat" fast enough to save us both, poor NYC skyscrappers!!*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
Click to expand...





 And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
 The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]


 All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.


 No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES


 The white paper was not LAW just a proposal that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
Click to expand...


Followed by arab massacres, sieges and other attacks on jews in the mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> *The white paper was not LAW just a proposal *that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
Click to expand...


The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *aris2chat*
> Followed by arab massacres, sieges and other attacks on jews in the mandate.



During the 20's, 30's and 40's the palestinian people would love to give a humane treatment to all those Russians, Ukrainians and Poles with 0 right to live in Palestine who were destroying their homeland's ethnic make-up without their consent, turning them into a minority in their own land.

*They would love to be in charge of their own homeland so they could organize an immigration agency that would deport those illegal immigrants in a humane fashion just like the US government does with hundreds of thousands of haitians, mexicans etc, etc... every single day arriving in the US by boat, plane, vehicles, etc, etc...*

Unfortunately, in case you haven't noticed, the palestinian people were at the time under the boot of a foreign military occupation that put them down everytime they tried to exercise the same right  other peoples around the world like the american people take for granted.

The right to preserve the ethnic make-up of one's own homeland, the right to exercise sovereignty over their homeland.

The fault for the palestinian attacks on the european invaders living in their land without their consent falls squarely on the foreign power's usurpation (through brute force) of their right to govern their own homeland.

*And history proved them right.... 

The invaders did split their homeland and have been murdering them when they try to move about their homeland ever since.*


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate,*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get that lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN minutes, unless you can produce irrefutable evidence that the arab muslims had a state of their own with a ruling government and a head of state at the time the mandate came into place ?
> 
> So simple to use the LIES of an ISLAMONAZI until you are asked to substantiate his LIES from another source. Try reading the San Remo Conference notes that explain what is actually meant, same with the rest of the treaties you abuse.
Click to expand...


Provide text and links to the text that supports your position.  Your position is based on propaganda and there is no text that supports your position, hence you just spout nonsense with nothing to back it up.  I post fact and back it up with source material. 

As far as the San Remo Conference "Notes", I think that you should read them, as I doubt you have ever read them.  This is in a.) of the Notes. (And this is repeated in the Mandate itself.)

"(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that *there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities*"


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> The white paper was not LAW just a proposal that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
Click to expand...


I am posting from the Avalon Project at Yale, you are posting propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  Why don't you grow up.

The Mandate did not say homeland it said a "National Home" IN Palestine.   The white paper was written to make clear what the Mandate intended, and that was that there would be no exclusively Jewish state in Palestine and that  an* "independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate,*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get that lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN minutes, unless you can produce irrefutable evidence that the arab muslims had a state of their own with a ruling government and a head of state at the time the mandate came into place ?
> 
> So simple to use the LIES of an ISLAMONAZI until you are asked to substantiate his LIES from another source. Try reading the San Remo Conference notes that explain what is actually meant, same with the rest of the treaties you abuse.
Click to expand...


Nice parry.

When did the mandate become part of Britain?


----------



## SAYIT

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici;  _et al,_
> 
> I guess I'm having a senior moment.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who decides what is an "equitable agreement?"  The key is reasonable compromise.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "The establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews" was set forth by the General Assembly adoption of Resolution 181(II) in Part II Section "A" describing the "Arab State."  However this was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) at the direction of the Arab League.
> 
> Maybe I'm confused.
> 
> It seems to me that it is the Palestinians that "want control over the whole of Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> _What rights do these people have?_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compensation for land seized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _What compromises should they make?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the money, once it's offered, sign a quit-claim, and leave.
Click to expand...

Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on, Arafat slinked away from the negotiations and started his 2nd and final Intifada. 
How did all that work out for those hapless "refugees?"


----------



## Kondor3

The United States will not allow Muslim Militants to dictate to it, whom we may be friends and allies with, and whom we may not.

"_Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute._" - a time-honored American mindset, suitable as a metaphor and rally-point baseline, for our purposes here.

The Palestinians did not commit the atrocities of 9-11, although, later, the perpetrator-organization claimed to be acting in support of their plight.

Al-Qaeda did this, citing _several_ reasons, including a US military presence in Saudi Arabia, not _just_ an action in support of the Palestinian cause.

But, indeed, Muslim Militants, committed this atrocity upon innocent Americans.

They knocked over two of our buildings.

We knocked over two of their countries.

They killed 3,000 of ours.

We killed 300,000 of theirs.

With a payback and kill-ratio like that, I seriously doubt that they'll be undertaking such action again, any time soon, sponsored by any Muslim government.

Any such government will understand all too well the price to be paid, should they be foolish enough to attempt such an attack again.

Next time, we may not be as merciful as we were last time - in contrast to what we _could_ have done.

They know this.

The terrorists of 9-11, et al, will not be allowed to win... not even posthumously.

No giving-in to attempts at intimidation and steering our foreign policy... no surrender.



			
				José;8859933 said:
			
		

> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have already surrendered by being so weak and incapable of doing anything to hurt Israel, and *the sooner they realize that* they've already given up, the faster they can all move on with their lives and live in peace and prosper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey buddy...
> 
> Palestinians surely didn't realize their "defeat" fast enough to save us both, poor NYC skyscrappers!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

SAYIT said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> _What rights do these people have?_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for land seized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _What compromises should they make?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the money, once it's offered, sign a quit-claim, and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on, Arafat slinked away from the negotiations and started his 2nd and final Intifada.
> How did all that work out for those hapless "refugees?"
Click to expand...

Nobody ever accused the Palestinians of being the brightest crayons in the box.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.



How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?

At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.

God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.

Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.

Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.


----------



## MrMax

José;8859933 said:
			
		

> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have already surrendered by being so weak and incapable of doing anything to hurt Israel, and *the sooner they realize that* they've already given up, the faster they can all move on with their lives and live in peace and prosper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hey buddy...
> 
> Palestinians surely didn't realize their "defeat" fast enough to save us both, poor NYC skyscrappers!!*
Click to expand...


Actually, no Palestinian was involved in 9/11. Please try again.


----------



## Kondor3

José;8860258 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
Click to expand...

Thank you... thank you... I'll be here all week... two shows a day... come again!


----------



## aris2chat

José;8860038 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *aris2chat*
> Followed by arab massacres, sieges and other attacks on jews in the mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the 20's, 30's and 40's the palestinian people would love to give a humane treatment to all those Russians, Ukrainians and Poles with 0 right to live in Palestine who were destroying their homeland's ethnic make-up without their consent, turning them into a minority in their own land.
> 
> *They would love to be in charge of their own homeland so they could organize an immigration agency that would deport those illegal immigrants in a humane fashion just like the US government does with hundreds of thousands of haitians, mexicans etc, etc... every single day arriving in the US by boat, plane, vehicles, etc, etc...*
> 
> Unfortunately, in case you haven't noticed, the palestinian people were at the time under the boot of a foreign military occupation that put them down everytime they tried to exercise the same right  other peoples around the world like the american people take for granted.
> 
> The right to preserve the ethnic make-up of one's own homeland, the right to exercise sovereignty over their homeland.
> 
> The fault for the palestinian attacks on the european invaders living in their land without their consent falls squarely on the foreign power's usurpation (through brute force) of their right to govern their own homeland.
> 
> *And history proved them right....
> 
> The invaders did split their homeland and have been murdering them when they try to move about their homeland ever since.*
Click to expand...


The mandate was going to give the palestinians a homeland.  There had never been a palestinian state.  It had always been under occupation since the time of Rome.

At the end of WWI there less than 500,000 people in all of the mandate.  During Roman times there more than a million people in Jerusalem alone.  There was more than enough room for an arab state and a jewish state.  More arabs than jews migrated into the mandate.  British put restrictions on the number of jews allowed to enter, but not on the arabs coming to seek work.
Those who had been in the mandate for two years or more were classified as palestinian when the mandate ended.  Almost half the population of arab came from other countries, not native to the land.  Most of those became refugees and supported by the UN.

Arab state force their jewish population out and those refugees were absorbed into Israel, their historic and religious homeland.  More jewish refugees than the arabs that left, at arab insistence.  Israel, before and after the mandate ended, wanted the arabs to stay.  Arabs would not let them return to Israel.


----------



## toastman

José;8860258 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
Click to expand...


So anyone who supports Israel is a fanatical Zionist LOL. 
Speaking of bolding extremely ridiculous comments LOL !


----------



## toastman

I would love Jose to explain how European Jews who immigrated to Mandatory Palestine were invaders.
Specially considering the fact that the British Mandate encouraged immigration
Specially considering the fact that the British FACILITATED Jewish immigration

But like I've said many times, if pro Palestinians abandon their 'Jewish invader' crap, the. Their whole Palestinian propaganda agenda is finished.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> *The white paper was not LAW just a proposal *that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
Click to expand...





 The white paper did no such thing, as the British government could not over rule the Mandate. The mandate had already stated that the remit was to give the Jews a home in Palestine, and at the time of the remit Palestine included trans Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon. And the maps show that the land allocated was from the sea to the river.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> José;8860258 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So anyone who supports Israel is a fanatical Zionist LOL. Speaking of bolding extremely ridiculous comments LOL !
Click to expand...

It's OK... he doesn't know any better, in this narrow context, and it probably wouldn't make much difference, even if he did... mox nix... machts nicht... means nothing... no big deal.


----------



## aris2chat

José;8860258 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
Click to expand...


Obviously you do not have all the facts.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 393, The United Nations General Assembly, December 2, 1950. Accessed Nov 24, 2012.

Most palestinian refugees would rather be compensated than to go to Israel.  They would rather resettle elsewhere in the world than go the PA either.

The generation that left, for the most part are gone.  Palestinian today have no connection to Israel or palestine.

There was never a need for the palestinians to be refugees.  The arabs create them and refuse to take responsibility to resettle them.  Lebanon is too small but other arab state could easily have absorbed the palestinians.

The "tragedy" was of arab making.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN minutes, unless you can produce irrefutable evidence that the arab muslims had a state of their own with a ruling government and a head of state at the time the mandate came into place ?
> 
> So simple to use the LIES of an ISLAMONAZI until you are asked to substantiate his LIES from another source. Try reading the San Remo Conference notes that explain what is actually meant, same with the rest of the treaties you abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide text and links to the text that supports your position.  Your position is based on propaganda and there is no text that supports your position, hence you just spout nonsense with nothing to back it up.  I post fact and back it up with source material.
> 
> As far as the San Remo Conference "Notes", I think that you should read them, as I doubt you have ever read them.  This is in a.) of the Notes. (And this is repeated in the Mandate itself.)
> 
> "(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that *there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities*"
Click to expand...





 Why do you ISLAMONAZI's always leave out the next part................ *or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country*


 Game, Set and match to the unbiased I do believe


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> *The white paper was not LAW just a proposal *that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The white paper did no such thing, as the British government could not over rule the Mandate. The mandate had already stated that the remit was to give the Jews a home in Palestine, and at the time of the remit Palestine included trans Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon. And the maps show that the land allocated was from the sea to the river.
Click to expand...


Look at the mandate charter and the League of Nations Covenant.

The 1939 White Paper says the same thing.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> The white paper was not LAW just a proposal that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am posting from the Avalon Project at Yale, you are posting propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  Why don't you grow up.
> 
> The Mandate did not say homeland it said a "National Home" IN Palestine.   The white paper was written to make clear what the Mandate intended, and that was that there would be no exclusively Jewish state in Palestine and that  an* "independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
Click to expand...




 What you are quoting was not International Law or the Mandate just the white paper from 1939. It had no basis in law being nothing more than an authoritative report or guide helping readers to understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision.  Or in other words a grey literature. As I said it did not even make its first reading


 As an aside were was the "National Home" of the arab muslims supposed to be according to the Mandate ?


----------



## Kondor3

"National Home" in this context = intent to carve-out a Nation.

The Jews carved-out theirs.

The Palestinians, slow-on-the-draw as always, took a pass on the opportunity to carve-out one of their own.

And now their children and grandchildren are paying the price for that foolishness.

Not to mention, letting their Arab neighbors annex them, and dismantle what little apparatus there was, for Palestinian self-governance at the time.

No guts, no glory.

No brains, no country.

Nature has de-selected them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN minutes, unless you can produce irrefutable evidence that the arab muslims had a state of their own with a ruling government and a head of state at the time the mandate came into place ?
> 
> So simple to use the LIES of an ISLAMONAZI until you are asked to substantiate his LIES from another source. Try reading the San Remo Conference notes that explain what is actually meant, same with the rest of the treaties you abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice parry.
> 
> When did the mandate become part of Britain?
Click to expand...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

 The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.

 The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] *The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan,* an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family


 Cant see any mention of a Palestinian nation can you ?


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for land seized.
> 
> 
> Take the money, once it's offered, sign a quit-claim, and leave.[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on, Arafat slinked away from the negotiations and started his 2nd and final Intifada.
> How did all that work out for those hapless "refugees?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody ever accused the Palestinians of being the brightest crayons in the box.
Click to expand...




 They never miss a chance to miss a chance


----------



## Phoenall

José;8860258 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
Click to expand...





 Maybe you should take a look the right of return again and see what it really says. It is not a simple matter of the muslims moving to land they never owned, but a many pronged fork with compensation being one option


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> I would love Jose to explain how European Jews who immigrated to Mandatory Palestine were invaders.
> Specially considering the fact that the British Mandate encouraged immigration
> Specially considering the fact that the British FACILITATED Jewish immigration
> 
> But like I've said many times, if pro Palestinians abandon their 'Jewish invader' crap, the. Their whole Palestinian propaganda agenda is finished.






 It was actually a pre-requisite of the Mandate to allow for the migration of Jews to Palestine, and they were even allocated what became trans Jordan in the initial discussions regarding the partitioning of the mandate. ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED in British politics re wrote the mandate and gave the land to the Hashemites. That is over 78% of the land destined for a Jewish home was taken away by the British ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I think you've again misread the script.



montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More smoke, Rocco?
> 
> The  Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> Key words:* "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"*
> 
> A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, I could not care less about the census.  It is merely raw data for further consideration.  It doesn't drive policy.

Second, borders have two sides.  One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed.  You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers.  As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it.  Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document.  However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice.  Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty _(which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement)_ as the initial territorial reference.  As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force.  The language on rights is much stronger in their favor.  But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.  

Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government).  The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.



			
				The White Paper of May 1939* - The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
			
		

> *110.*	The Mandatorys new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:
> _the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate._​
> They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
> did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.​
> The other three members	_were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it._
> 
> *111.*	It was the intention of His Majestys government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947



While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."  Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above.  You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved.  And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The white paper did no such thing, as the British government could not over rule the Mandate. The mandate had already stated that the remit was to give the Jews a home in Palestine, and at the time of the remit Palestine included trans Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon. And the maps show that the land allocated was from the sea to the river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the mandate charter and the League of Nations Covenant.
> 
> The 1939 White Paper says the same thing.
Click to expand...



 And it means NOTHING, as it was just a proposal that fell at the first hurdle. It had no basis in law and could not alter the mandate in any way.
 This is the mandate's remit.

 The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.

 No mention in there of a "Palestinian state"  is there.

 The preamble of the mandate document declared:


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[28]


 Again no mention of a " Palestinian state "


Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations[edit]

The preamble of the Mandate document states that the Mandate is granted to Britain "for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations". That article states that "(...) [C]ommunities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." Throughout the period of the Mandate, Palestinian leaders cited this as proving their assertion that the British were obliged under the terms of the Mandate to facilitate the eventual creation of an independent Arab state in Palestine.



 And yet again no mention of a " Palestinian state " until the arab muslims decided that this is what it said.  But another massive fail as they have so9 far proven that they are not ready to stand alone.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you've again misread the script.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own
> 
> 
> The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.
> 
> As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.
> 
> They had the chance of  national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.
> 
> And if they had no homes then were do they go
> 
> Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I could not care less about the census.  It is merely raw data for further consideration.  It doesn't drive policy.
> 
> Second, borders have two sides.  One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed.  You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers.  As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it.  Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document.  However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice.  Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty _(which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement)_ as the initial territorial reference.  As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force.  The language on rights is much stronger in their favor.  But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government).  The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper of May 1939* - The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *110.*	The Mandatorys new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:
> _the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate._​
> They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
> did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.​
> The other three members	_were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it._
> 
> *111.*	It was the intention of His Majestys government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."  Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above.  You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved.  And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.

Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> *The white paper was not LAW just a proposal *that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> *The white paper was not LAW just a proposal *that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.
Click to expand...


I am not sure if a wrong can be fixed, but recognizing it was a wrong is a good first step.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you've again misread the script.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I could not care less about the census.  It is merely raw data for further consideration.  It doesn't drive policy.
> 
> Second, borders have two sides.  One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed.  You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers.  As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it.  Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document.  However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice.  Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty _(which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement)_ as the initial territorial reference.  As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force.  The language on rights is much stronger in their favor.  But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government).  The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper of May 1939* - The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *110.*	The Mandatorys new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:
> _the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate._​
> They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
> did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.​
> The other three members	_were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it._
> 
> *111.*	It was the intention of His Majestys government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."  Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above.  You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved.  And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.
> 
> Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
> 
> The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
Click to expand...


Please don't make the font so large.  One step up in font is sufficient.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
> The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> 
> All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.
> 
> 
> No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES
> 
> 
> *The white paper was not LAW just a proposal *that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.
Click to expand...


Yes, Mr. Tinmore, you should try to live in the here and now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> ...the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."



What part of the white Paper deviated from the mandate and LoN Covenant?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you've again misread the script.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I could not care less about the census.  It is merely raw data for further consideration.  It doesn't drive policy.
> 
> Second, borders have two sides.  One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed.  You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers.  As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it.  Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document.  However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice.  Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty _(which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement)_ as the initial territorial reference.  As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force.  The language on rights is much stronger in their favor.  But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government).  The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper of May 1939* - The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *110.*	The Mandatorys new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:
> _the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate._​
> They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
> did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.​
> The other three members	_were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it._
> 
> *111.*	It was the intention of His Majestys government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."  Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above.  You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved.  And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.
> 
> Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
> 
> The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
Click to expand...






 Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.

 Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.

 What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity. It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the white Paper deviated from the mandate and LoN Covenant?
Click to expand...

What part or parts of any of those mentioned are still relevant, Mr. Tinmore? Truthfully.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure if a wrong can be fixed, but recognizing it was a wrong is a good first step.
Click to expand...





 But the white paper was an attempt by Britain to re write the terms of the mandate, which is why the LoN kicked it into touch as being against the Mandate Charter.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you've again misread the script.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I could not care less about the census.  It is merely raw data for further consideration.  It doesn't drive policy.
> 
> Second, borders have two sides.  One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed.  You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers.  As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it.  Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document.  However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice.  Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty _(which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement)_ as the initial territorial reference.  As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force.  The language on rights is much stronger in their favor.  But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government).  The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."  Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above.  You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved.  And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.
> 
> Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
> 
> The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.
> 
> Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.
> 
> What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, *didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity.* It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.
Click to expand...


Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights.  What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls.  The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.


----------



## aris2chat

white paper was rejected as it goes against the mandate


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> white paper was rejected as it goes against the mandate



The White Paper was not rejected.  The Council never voted on it.  It was the interpretation that was accepted.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.
> 
> Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
> 
> The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.
> 
> Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.
> 
> What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, *didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity.* It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights.  What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls.  The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.
Click to expand...


Actually I am in favor of all the Muslim countries bvecoming secular states where people can practice in peace whatever religion they please without being harassed or murdered.  After all, these Muslim countries never originally were Muslim countries in the first place but forced their religion on others.  No doubt you will agree with me being the unbiased person you are.  Think at how happy the Christians, Hindus and Muslims will be to finally have some peace.  In fact the different Muslim sects will be happy too because they wouldn't have to worry about being blown up by other Muslim sects.


----------



## SAYIT

José;8860258 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
Click to expand...


Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:

*Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel*

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found. 

Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg


----------



## toastman

Don't kind Jose, SAYIT. He's about as sharp as a tennis ball.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _*et al,*_

OK, if you say it is the "Law" and the Mandatory's interpretation, then --- 



montelatici said:


> Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights.  What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls.  The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.



*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				The White Paper of May 1939* - The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
			
		

> *126.*	When the second World War came to an end in 1945, it was not possible for the mandatory Power to give full effect to the policy set out in the White Paper of 1939. The League of Nations, to which that document was to have been submitted for approval, no longer existed. And the tragic fate of the Jewish people in Europe had created a demand that the Palestine problem should be examined again in relation to the needs of the survivors of racial persecution.
> 
> *130.*	The Report was published in London and Washington on the 30th April. On the evening of that day President Truman issued a statement which read in part as follows:-
> _&#8220;I am very happy that the request which I made for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jews into Palestine has been unanimously endorsed by the Anglo-American committee of Inquiry. The transference of these unfortunate people should now be accomplished with the greatest despatch&#8230; *I am also pleased that the committee recommends in effect the abrogation of the White Paper of 1939 including existing restrictions on immigration and land acquisition to permit the further development of the Jewish national home. *It is also gratifying that the report envisages the carrying out of large scale economic development projects in Palestine which would facilitate further immigration and be of benefit to the entire population. In addition to those immediate objectives the report deals with many other questions of long-range political policies and questions of international law which require careful study and which I will take under advisement.&#8221;_​
> *154.*	This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-
> &#8220;His Majesty&#8217;s Government have &#8230;been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'&#8217; Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty&#8217;s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
> 
> It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty&#8217;s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist&#8217;s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. *We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.*&#8221;​
> London,
> July 1947



*(COMMENT)*

The Mandatory never approved the policy position in the 1939 White Paper.  It was not, in any way, a facet of law.  Further, the UK aborted the policy.  The UK referred the matter to the UN, which culminated in the 1947 Recommendations that became General Assembly 181(II) (AKA: The Partition Plan).

For some reason, the pro-Palestinian side is always trying to attribute some violation of law to the Mandatory.  They keep raising the issue of "civil and religious rights" to the equation.  The matter of protecting and interpreting what those "civil and religious" rights were is something of a quandary _(a state of uncertainty or indecision as to what to do in a difficult situation)_ given the irreconcilable difference cited.  It was the Allied Powers, in 1920 _(90 years ago)_, that stipulated the protections of "civil and religious" rights, and up to the Allied Powers to determine what those rights were and what constituted there protection.  No one today knows what the 1920 version of those rights were, when they were bestowed and conveyed, ---- and ---- to a large degree, what impact they have today.  Those rights, as they were understood then, were never really codified.  Certainly, the "civil and religious" rights of the 1920's were considerably different than what we attribute them to be today.

*One more time:*  The policies expressed in the 1939 White Paper were never approved by either the House of Commons _(Mandatory per the Foreign Secretary)_, or the LoN Mandate Council _(No Order in Council was promulgated)_, or by the UN International Trusteeship System under Chapter XII of the Charter.   The British Foreign Secretary (A/AC 14/8 2 OCT 47) asked the United Nations (FEB 47) to "consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem."  Hence the recommendations (submitted AUG 47) of the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), and adopted by the General Assembly (NOV 47). 



			
				Chapter 1: The question of Palestine before the United Nations said:
			
		

> UNSCOP completed its work on 31 August 1947, with its members agreeing on the question of terminating the Mandate, the principle of independence and the role of the United Nations. There was no consensus, however, on a settlement of the question of Palestine. The committee considered two proposals on the question of Palestine: the majority and minority proposals. The majority of the members recommended that Palestine be partitioned into an Arab State and a Jewish State, with a special international status for the city of Jerusalem under the administrative authority of the United Nations. The three entities were to be linked in an economic union. The minority plan called for an independent federated structure comprising an Arab State and a Jewish State, with Jerusalem as the capital of the federation.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

José;8859933 said:
			
		

> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Palestinians have lost and will never have any peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have already surrendered by being so weak and incapable of doing anything to hurt Israel, and *the sooner they realize that* they've already given up, the faster they can all move on with their lives and live in peace and prosper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hey buddy...
> 
> Palestinians surely didn't realize their "defeat" fast enough to save us both, poor NYC skyscrappers!!*
Click to expand...


Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11 not the palestinians.


----------



## aris2chat

toastman said:


> José;8860258 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and *despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda *EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR*.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So anyone who supports Israel is a fanatical Zionist LOL.
> Speaking of bolding extremely ridiculous comments LOL !
Click to expand...


"Zionism is nothing more - but also nothing less - than the Jewish people's sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with it's name."  Abba Eban Nov 3, '75

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement.  We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home."  Emir Feisal March 3, '19


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you've again misread the script.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.*
> 
> "The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration.  But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.*
> 
> "The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2]  an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.*
> 
> 
> It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states.  You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about.  From the 1939 White Paper:
> 
> "It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
> 
> "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. *Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."*
> 
> *But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.* They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> *[]The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."[]*
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
> 
> I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I could not care less about the census.  It is merely raw data for further consideration.  It doesn't drive policy.
> 
> Second, borders have two sides.  One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed.  You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers.  As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it.  Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document.  However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice.  Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty _(which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement)_ as the initial territorial reference.  As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force.  The language on rights is much stronger in their favor.  But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government).  The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White Paper of May 1939* - The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *110.*	The Mandatorys new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:
> _the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate._​
> They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members
> did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.​
> The other three members	_were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it._
> 
> *111.*	It was the intention of His Majestys government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.
> 
> *SOURCE:* A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."  Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above.  You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved.  And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.
> 
> Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
> 
> The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*[]The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."[]*
Click to expand...



We all read it the first time.  Repeating yourself is not going to retroactively get the thing passed.
It is not relevant.  It did not pass.  It did not conform with the mandate.
Find a new song.  This one is old and highly out of tune.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commission was a purely advisory body.  Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not.  So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.
> 
> Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
> 
> The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:*[]The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."[]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.
> 
> Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.
> 
> What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, *didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity.* It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights.  What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls.  The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.
Click to expand...


In Israel there are equal rights.  Palestinians in the WB don't have equal right with Israelis as they are not Israeli but palestinian.
Let palestinians choose to live in peace with Israel and let them take up the issue of their rights with the PA.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.
> 
> Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.
> 
> What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, *didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity.* It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights.  What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls.  The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Israel there are equal rights.  Palestinians in the WB don't have equal right with Israelis as they are not Israeli but palestinian.
> Let palestinians choose to live in peace with Israel and let them take up the issue of their rights with the PA.
Click to expand...


Non-Jews in Israel do not have equal rights and creating Bantustans and then controlling them was a failed policy of the white South Africans was a loser then and is a loser with respect to Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties.



There are still many people beating that dead horse.

The epitome of insanity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majestys government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable.



It took these clowns 25 years to figure out that their stupid plan was going to blow up in their face. The problems were as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.

Then the UN tried to fix the problem by suggesting a plan that was already rejected 10 years earlier.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majestys government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took these clowns 25 years to figure out that their stupid plan was going to blow up in their face. The problems were as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.
> 
> Then the UN tried to fix the problem by suggesting a plan that was *already rejected 10 years earlier*.
Click to expand...

Rejected by whom?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights.  What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls.  The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Israel there are equal rights.  Palestinians in the WB don't have equal right with Israelis as they are not Israeli but palestinian.
> Let palestinians choose to live in peace with Israel and let them take up the issue of their rights with the PA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-Jews in Israel do not have equal rights and creating Bantustans and then controlling them was a failed policy of the white South Africans was a loser then and is a loser with respect to Israel.
Click to expand...


What rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel? Provide a link too.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Israel there are equal rights.  Palestinians in the WB don't have equal right with Israelis as they are not Israeli but palestinian.
> Let palestinians choose to live in peace with Israel and let them take up the issue of their rights with the PA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-Jews in Israel do not have equal rights and creating Bantustans and then controlling them was a failed policy of the white South Africans was a loser then and is a loser with respect to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel? Provide a link too.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEHk1bLJCBw]Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Kondor3

She can talk about Israeli Apartheid all she likes.

That doesn't mean that it exists.

The alternative perspective is that Israel walls-off a dangerous, savage, hostile population segment, whose militant organizations and leaders have sworn to destroy it, and to drown its citizens in the sea.

That's not Apartheid.

That's Common Sense.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-Jews in Israel do not have equal rights and creating Bantustans and then controlling them was a failed policy of the white South Africans was a loser then and is a loser with respect to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel? Provide a link too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEHk1bLJCBw]Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Again, what rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel?
With a valid link, not some video of a woman giving her opinion


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> She can talk about Israeli Apartheid all she likes.
> 
> That doesn't mean that it exists.
> 
> The alternative perspective is that Israel walls-off a dangerous, savage, hostile population segment, whose militant organizations and leaders have sworn to destroy it, and to drown its citizens in the sea.
> 
> That's not Apartheid.
> 
> That's Common Sense.


Gotta give Tinmore credit. He's not afraid to go down with the ship.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Discriminatory Laws in Israel*
See site for details.
Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel

Civil Wrongs Law - Amendment No. 8 (Liability of the State) 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 6 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
Income Tax Ordinance - Amendment No. 191 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
Israeli Prisons Ordinance Amendment No. 43 - Prisoner-Attorney Meet... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
Israeli Prisons Ordinance - Amendment No. 40 (Meetings with Lawyers) 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2011
"Anti-Boycott Law" - Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel th... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
Foreign Property Ownership - Israel Lands Law (Amendment No. 3) 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
"Admissions Committees Law" - Cooperative Societies Ordinance - Ame... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
Citizenship Law - Amendment No. 10 	Citizenship 	2011
"Nakba Law" - Amendment No. 40 to the Budgets Foundations Law 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
"Foreign Government Funding Law" - Law on Disclosure Requirements f... 	Freedom of Association 	2011
Law to Strip Payments from a Current or Former Member of Knesset du... 	Economic Rights 	2011
Extension of Detention - Criminal Procedure Law (Suspects of Securi... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2010
"Negev Individual Settlements" - Negev Development Authority Law -... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 12 	Education 	2010
Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance - Amendment No. 10 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
"Pardon Law" or "Amnesty Law" - Termination of Proceedings and Dele... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2010
Regional Councils Law (Date of General Elections) Special Amendment... 	Political Participation 	2009
Israel Land Administration Law - Amendment No. 7 	Land and Planning Rights 	2009
National Priority Areas - The Economic Efficiency Law - Legislative... 	Economic Rights 	2009
Child Vaccinations and Child Allowances - Economic Efficiency Law 	Economic Rights 	2009
Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 7: Benefits f... 	Education 	2008
Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 4 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2008
Criminal Procedure Law (Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Te... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2006
"Ban on Family Unification" - Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law... 	Citizenship 	2003
Law of Political Parties - Amendment No. 12 	Political Participation 	2002
Use of Hebrew Date Law 	Culture and Language 	1998
Knesset Law 	Political Participation 	1994
Basic Law: The Government 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	1992
Second Authority for Television and Radio Law 	Culture and Language 	1990
The Golan Heights Law 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1981
Interpretation Law 	Sources of Law 	1981
Public Lands Law (Eviction of Squatters) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1981
Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1980
Foundations of Law Act 	Sources of Law 	1980
Religious Jewish Services Law 	Religion 	1971
Law of Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1969) and Law of Mikve Israel Agricultu... 	Culture and Language 	1969
Protection of Holy Sites Law 	Religion 	1967
National Planning and Building Law -Limitation of Water, Electricit... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
National Planning and Building Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
Broadcasting Authority Law 	Culture and Language 	1965
Basic Law: Israel Lands 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
Israel Land Administration Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
Basic Law: The Knesset 	Political Participation 	1958
Jewish National Fund Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
State Education Law 	Education 	1953
Land Acquisition Law (Actions and Compensation) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law 	Culture and Language 	1952
Entry into Israel Law 	Citizenship 	1952
Citizenship Law 	Citizenship 	1952
Law of Return 	Citizenship 	1950
Absentees Property Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1950
State Stamp Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
Flag and Emblem Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
Law and Government Ordinance, Article 18A 	Religion 	1948
Defense Regulations (Times of Emergency), Regulation 125 (Closed Zo... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1945
Trade with the Enemy Ordinance 	Culture and Language 	1939


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> *Discriminatory Laws in Israel*
> See site for details.
> Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
> 
> Civil Wrongs Law - Amendment No. 8 (Liability of the State) 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
> Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 6 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
> Income Tax Ordinance - Amendment No. 191 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
> Israeli Prisons Ordinance Amendment No. 43 - Prisoner-Attorney Meet... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
> Israeli Prisons Ordinance - Amendment No. 40 (Meetings with Lawyers) 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2011
> "Anti-Boycott Law" - Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel th... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
> Foreign Property Ownership - Israel Lands Law (Amendment No. 3) 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
> "Admissions Committees Law" - Cooperative Societies Ordinance - Ame... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
> Citizenship Law - Amendment No. 10 	Citizenship 	2011
> "Nakba Law" - Amendment No. 40 to the Budgets Foundations Law 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
> "Foreign Government Funding Law" - Law on Disclosure Requirements f... 	Freedom of Association 	2011
> Law to Strip Payments from a Current or Former Member of Knesset du... 	Economic Rights 	2011
> Extension of Detention - Criminal Procedure Law (Suspects of Securi... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2010
> "Negev Individual Settlements" - Negev Development Authority Law -... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
> Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 12 	Education 	2010
> Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance - Amendment No. 10 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
> "Pardon Law" or "Amnesty Law" - Termination of Proceedings and Dele... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2010
> Regional Councils Law (Date of General Elections) Special Amendment... 	Political Participation 	2009
> Israel Land Administration Law - Amendment No. 7 	Land and Planning Rights 	2009
> National Priority Areas - The Economic Efficiency Law - Legislative... 	Economic Rights 	2009
> Child Vaccinations and Child Allowances - Economic Efficiency Law 	Economic Rights 	2009
> Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 7: Benefits f... 	Education 	2008
> Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 4 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2008
> Criminal Procedure Law (Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Te... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2006
> "Ban on Family Unification" - Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law... 	Citizenship 	2003
> Law of Political Parties - Amendment No. 12 	Political Participation 	2002
> Use of Hebrew Date Law 	Culture and Language 	1998
> Knesset Law 	Political Participation 	1994
> Basic Law: The Government 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	1992
> Second Authority for Television and Radio Law 	Culture and Language 	1990
> The Golan Heights Law 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1981
> Interpretation Law 	Sources of Law 	1981
> Public Lands Law (Eviction of Squatters) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1981
> Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1980
> Foundations of Law Act 	Sources of Law 	1980
> Religious Jewish Services Law 	Religion 	1971
> Law of Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1969) and Law of Mikve Israel Agricultu... 	Culture and Language 	1969
> Protection of Holy Sites Law 	Religion 	1967
> National Planning and Building Law -Limitation of Water, Electricit... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
> National Planning and Building Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
> Broadcasting Authority Law 	Culture and Language 	1965
> Basic Law: Israel Lands 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
> Israel Land Administration Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
> Basic Law: The Knesset 	Political Participation 	1958
> Jewish National Fund Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
> State Education Law 	Education 	1953
> Land Acquisition Law (Actions and Compensation) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
> World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law 	Culture and Language 	1952
> Entry into Israel Law 	Citizenship 	1952
> Citizenship Law 	Citizenship 	1952
> Law of Return 	Citizenship 	1950
> Absentees Property Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1950
> State Stamp Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
> Flag and Emblem Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
> Law and Government Ordinance, Article 18A 	Religion 	1948
> Defense Regulations (Times of Emergency), Regulation 125 (Closed Zo... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1945
> Trade with the Enemy Ordinance 	Culture and Language 	1939


No big thing Tinmore. It seems those laws apply to everyone, not just Palestinians.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> *Discriminatory Laws in Israel*
> See site for details.
> Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
> 
> Civil Wrongs Law - Amendment No. 8 (Liability of the State) 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
> Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 6 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
> Income Tax Ordinance - Amendment No. 191 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
> Israeli Prisons Ordinance Amendment No. 43 - Prisoner-Attorney Meet... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
> Israeli Prisons Ordinance - Amendment No. 40 (Meetings with Lawyers) 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2011
> "Anti-Boycott Law" - Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel th... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
> Foreign Property Ownership - Israel Lands Law (Amendment No. 3) 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
> "Admissions Committees Law" - Cooperative Societies Ordinance - Ame... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
> Citizenship Law - Amendment No. 10 	Citizenship 	2011
> "Nakba Law" - Amendment No. 40 to the Budgets Foundations Law 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
> "Foreign Government Funding Law" - Law on Disclosure Requirements f... 	Freedom of Association 	2011
> Law to Strip Payments from a Current or Former Member of Knesset du... 	Economic Rights 	2011
> Extension of Detention - Criminal Procedure Law (Suspects of Securi... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2010
> "Negev Individual Settlements" - Negev Development Authority Law -... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
> Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 12 	Education 	2010
> Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance - Amendment No. 10 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
> "Pardon Law" or "Amnesty Law" - Termination of Proceedings and Dele... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2010
> Regional Councils Law (Date of General Elections) Special Amendment... 	Political Participation 	2009
> Israel Land Administration Law - Amendment No. 7 	Land and Planning Rights 	2009
> National Priority Areas - The Economic Efficiency Law - Legislative... 	Economic Rights 	2009
> Child Vaccinations and Child Allowances - Economic Efficiency Law 	Economic Rights 	2009
> Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 7: Benefits f... 	Education 	2008
> Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 4 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2008
> Criminal Procedure Law (Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Te... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2006
> "Ban on Family Unification" - Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law... 	Citizenship 	2003
> Law of Political Parties - Amendment No. 12 	Political Participation 	2002
> Use of Hebrew Date Law 	Culture and Language 	1998
> Knesset Law 	Political Participation 	1994
> Basic Law: The Government 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	1992
> Second Authority for Television and Radio Law 	Culture and Language 	1990
> The Golan Heights Law 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1981
> Interpretation Law 	Sources of Law 	1981
> Public Lands Law (Eviction of Squatters) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1981
> Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1980
> Foundations of Law Act 	Sources of Law 	1980
> Religious Jewish Services Law 	Religion 	1971
> Law of Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1969) and Law of Mikve Israel Agricultu... 	Culture and Language 	1969
> Protection of Holy Sites Law 	Religion 	1967
> National Planning and Building Law -Limitation of Water, Electricit... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
> National Planning and Building Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
> Broadcasting Authority Law 	Culture and Language 	1965
> Basic Law: Israel Lands 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
> Israel Land Administration Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
> Basic Law: The Knesset 	Political Participation 	1958
> Jewish National Fund Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
> State Education Law 	Education 	1953
> Land Acquisition Law (Actions and Compensation) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
> World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law 	Culture and Language 	1952
> Entry into Israel Law 	Citizenship 	1952
> Citizenship Law 	Citizenship 	1952
> Law of Return 	Citizenship 	1950
> Absentees Property Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1950
> State Stamp Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
> Flag and Emblem Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
> Law and Government Ordinance, Article 18A 	Religion 	1948
> Defense Regulations (Times of Emergency), Regulation 125 (Closed Zo... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1945
> Trade with the Enemy Ordinance 	Culture and Language 	1939



One last time. What RIGHTS do Non Jewish citizens share with the Jewish citizens of Israel.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-Jews in Israel do not have equal rights and creating Bantustans and then controlling them was a failed policy of the white South Africans was a loser then and is a loser with respect to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel? Provide a link too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEHk1bLJCBw]Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


If she does not want to have the freedom to be an arab women elected to the Knesset and the freedom to speak out, if she want to be a palestinian she is free to leave Israel.

She can be Israeli or she can be palestinian, it is her choice.  If arabs want the advantages and freedoms of Israel, they must accept Israel as their nation.  If they want to be under hamas or the PA laws and authority they can be palestinian.  There is not reason for a palestinian to have Israeli right unless they accept that they are Israeli.

Palestine would not accept someone having a duel citizenship with Israel as one.  They can even bring themselves to recognize Israel's right to exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel? Provide a link too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEHk1bLJCBw]Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If she does not want to have the freedom to be an arab women elected to the Knesset and the freedom to speak out, if she want to be a palestinian she is free to leave Israel.*
> 
> She can be Israeli or she can be palestinian, it is her choice.  If arabs want the advantages and freedoms of Israel, they must accept Israel as their nation.  If they want to be under hamas or the PA laws and authority they can be palestinian.  There is not reason for a palestinian to have Israeli right unless they accept that they are Israeli.
> 
> Palestine would not accept someone having a duel citizenship with Israel as one.  They can even bring themselves to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...


Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If she does not want to have the freedom to be an arab women elected to the Knesset and the freedom to speak out, if she want to be a palestinian she is free to leave Israel.*
> 
> She can be Israeli or she can be palestinian, it is her choice.  If arabs want the advantages and freedoms of Israel, they must accept Israel as their nation.  If they want to be under hamas or the PA laws and authority they can be palestinian.  There is not reason for a palestinian to have Israeli right unless they accept that they are Israeli.
> 
> Palestine would not accept someone having a duel citizenship with Israel as one.  They can even bring themselves to recognize Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
Click to expand...


It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.

Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If she does not want to have the freedom to be an arab women elected to the Knesset and the freedom to speak out, if she want to be a palestinian she is free to leave Israel.*
> 
> She can be Israeli or she can be palestinian, it is her choice.  If arabs want the advantages and freedoms of Israel, they must accept Israel as their nation.  If they want to be under hamas or the PA laws and authority they can be palestinian.  There is not reason for a palestinian to have Israeli right unless they accept that they are Israeli.
> 
> Palestine would not accept someone having a duel citizenship with Israel as one.  They can even bring themselves to recognize Israel's right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
Click to expand...


Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Palestinian Jews? It's 2014 Tinmore, not 1914.


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Discriminatory Laws in Israel*
> See site for details.
> Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
> 
> Civil Wrongs Law - Amendment No. 8 (Liability of the State) 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
> Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 6 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
> Income Tax Ordinance - Amendment No. 191 	1967 Occupied Territories 	2012
> Israeli Prisons Ordinance Amendment No. 43 - Prisoner-Attorney Meet... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2012
> Israeli Prisons Ordinance - Amendment No. 40 (Meetings with Lawyers) 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2011
> "Anti-Boycott Law" - Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel th... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
> Foreign Property Ownership - Israel Lands Law (Amendment No. 3) 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
> "Admissions Committees Law" - Cooperative Societies Ordinance - Ame... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2011
> Citizenship Law - Amendment No. 10 	Citizenship 	2011
> "Nakba Law" - Amendment No. 40 to the Budgets Foundations Law 	Civil and Political Rights 	2011
> "Foreign Government Funding Law" - Law on Disclosure Requirements f... 	Freedom of Association 	2011
> Law to Strip Payments from a Current or Former Member of Knesset du... 	Economic Rights 	2011
> Extension of Detention - Criminal Procedure Law (Suspects of Securi... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2010
> "Negev Individual Settlements" - Negev Development Authority Law -... 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
> Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 12 	Education 	2010
> Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance - Amendment No. 10 	Land and Planning Rights 	2010
> "Pardon Law" or "Amnesty Law" - Termination of Proceedings and Dele... 	Civil and Political Rights 	2010
> Regional Councils Law (Date of General Elections) Special Amendment... 	Political Participation 	2009
> Israel Land Administration Law - Amendment No. 7 	Land and Planning Rights 	2009
> National Priority Areas - The Economic Efficiency Law - Legislative... 	Economic Rights 	2009
> Child Vaccinations and Child Allowances - Economic Efficiency Law 	Economic Rights 	2009
> Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law - Amendment No. 7: Benefits f... 	Education 	2008
> Criminal Procedure Law - Interrogating Suspects - Amendment No. 4 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2008
> Criminal Procedure Law (Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Te... 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	2006
> "Ban on Family Unification" - Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law... 	Citizenship 	2003
> Law of Political Parties - Amendment No. 12 	Political Participation 	2002
> Use of Hebrew Date Law 	Culture and Language 	1998
> Knesset Law 	Political Participation 	1994
> Basic Law: The Government 	Criminal Law and Procedures 	1992
> Second Authority for Television and Radio Law 	Culture and Language 	1990
> The Golan Heights Law 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1981
> Interpretation Law 	Sources of Law 	1981
> Public Lands Law (Eviction of Squatters) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1981
> Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel 	1967 Occupied Territories 	1980
> Foundations of Law Act 	Sources of Law 	1980
> Religious Jewish Services Law 	Religion 	1971
> Law of Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1969) and Law of Mikve Israel Agricultu... 	Culture and Language 	1969
> Protection of Holy Sites Law 	Religion 	1967
> National Planning and Building Law -Limitation of Water, Electricit... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
> National Planning and Building Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1965
> Broadcasting Authority Law 	Culture and Language 	1965
> Basic Law: Israel Lands 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
> Israel Land Administration Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1960
> Basic Law: The Knesset 	Political Participation 	1958
> Jewish National Fund Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
> State Education Law 	Education 	1953
> Land Acquisition Law (Actions and Compensation) 	Land and Planning Rights 	1953
> World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law 	Culture and Language 	1952
> Entry into Israel Law 	Citizenship 	1952
> Citizenship Law 	Citizenship 	1952
> Law of Return 	Citizenship 	1950
> Absentees Property Law 	Land and Planning Rights 	1950
> State Stamp Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
> Flag and Emblem Law 	National Identity Symbols 	1949
> Law and Government Ordinance, Article 18A 	Religion 	1948
> Defense Regulations (Times of Emergency), Regulation 125 (Closed Zo... 	Land and Planning Rights 	1945
> Trade with the Enemy Ordinance 	Culture and Language 	1939
> 
> 
> 
> No big thing Tinmore. It seems those laws apply to everyone, not just Palestinians.
Click to expand...




 Just what I was thinking as well, so it seems he is just blowing wind


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If she does not want to have the freedom to be an arab women elected to the Knesset and the freedom to speak out, if she want to be a palestinian she is free to leave Israel.*
> 
> She can be Israeli or she can be palestinian, it is her choice.  If arabs want the advantages and freedoms of Israel, they must accept Israel as their nation.  If they want to be under hamas or the PA laws and authority they can be palestinian.  There is not reason for a palestinian to have Israeli right unless they accept that they are Israeli.
> 
> Palestine would not accept someone having a duel citizenship with Israel as one.  They can even bring themselves to recognize Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
Click to expand...





 Why should she be allowed to stay if she hates the country so much. All nations have laws against sedition and treason. The simple matter is she like all Palestinians want to rule Israel and have the Jews as slaves. Aint gonna happen.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
Click to expand...






 No they cant as the P.A. have changed the rules again and have said that NO JEW will be allowed to live in Palestine. And by Palestine they mean the arab version of Palestine that includes Israel.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
Click to expand...


It really pains you to type the word Israel, doesn't it?  I don't think you have ever done so.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel? Provide a link too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEHk1bLJCBw]Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel?
> With a valid link, not some video of a woman giving her opinion
Click to expand...






*Glad you asked.*


http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html

BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.


The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.

For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.

Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.

For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.

About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel?
> With a valid link, not some video of a woman giving her opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
Click to expand...


"Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel?
> With a valid link, not some video of a woman giving her opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
Click to expand...


Surrender is not in their vocabulary...*They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...*They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!!*
Click to expand...


Shame for them then.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel?
> With a valid link, not some video of a woman giving her opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
Click to expand...


Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
Click to expand...


Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haneen Zoabi MK Talks About Israel Apartheid and Lack of Democracy - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what rights are not shared by non Jewish citizens in Israel?
> With a valid link, not some video of a woman giving her opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
Click to expand...





 Same law applies to Israeli Jews and Israeli Christians wanting to marry those seen as enemies of the state. It is a simple enough matter that is the same in many other countries. Even in the UK we now see that spouses cant get an automatic right of residency and have to be supported by a sponsor. 

 So try again only this time with an actual racist law that only applies to arab muslims...............


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...*They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!!*
Click to expand...






 Then they have lost the support of the rest of the world, and it could come to world wide sanctions on Palestinian goods and aid.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
Click to expand...





 1) they started the violence against the Jews

 2) they are the losers in every war

 3)  the world is sick of their constant mooching rather than working for a living.


----------



## pbel

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.
Click to expand...


Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...

Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.

Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.

Check Mate!


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...
> 
> Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.
> 
> Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.
> 
> Check Mate!
Click to expand...


Israel is not obstinate in the peace talks.  On the contrary the Palestinians openly admit they are just staying in the talks until the last batch of prisoners are released.  And remember, the prisoners release was on condition of the talks starting.  What right have the Palestinians to stipulate they will not attend talks unless terrorists are released.  And shame, shame on Israel for giving in to the Pals' demands.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...[SIZE="2][B][I][U][COLOR="Blue"]They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!![/COLOR][/U][/I][/B][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

OK.

They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.

They won't be missed.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...[SIZE="2][B][I][U][COLOR="Blue"]They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!![/COLOR][/U][/I][/B][/SIZE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
Click to expand...


They are a drain on the area and the world in general.  Best thing for them is to find somewhere else to live.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
Click to expand...

When you continue to exist at the discretion of your adversary, you've lost.

Acknowledging that loss allows you continue to live, and to repair the damage, and to move beyond the loss.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...[SIZE="2][B][I][U][COLOR="Blue"]They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!![/COLOR][/U][/I][/B][/SIZE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
Click to expand...


Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...*They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
Click to expand...

That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.

As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.

Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.

Have _you_ served your country in such a way?

Getting back to the sidebar at hand...

=======================================

The Palestinians can surrender...

Or they can die...

A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) they started the violence against the Jews
> 
> 2) they are the losers in every war
> 
> 3)  the world is sick of their constant mooching rather than working for a living.
Click to expand...


Israeli lies.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Glad you asked.*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/limits-palestinians-living-israeli-spouses-154954962.html
> 
> BARTAA, Israel (AP)  When Israeli Arabs search for a spouse, they don't just worry about looks, job prospects or future in-laws. They must think about whether their partner will be allowed to live with them.
> 
> 
> The problem is  many Israeli Arabs, who are ethnically Palestinians, want to marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But relations between the Palestinian territories and Israel are testy at best and violent at worst, resulting in limits that even love can't overcome.
> 
> For the past decade, Israel has largely restricted Palestinians from joining their spouses inside the Jewish state, citing security concerns like Palestinian militants using entry permits gained through marriage to carry out attacks in Israel.
> 
> Critics charge that the restrictions are discriminatory and that their real aim to try to safeguard Israel's Jewish majority.
> 
> For ordinary people, the restrictions have undone countless romances, created stressful living arrangements and frayed family ties.
> 
> About 1.6 million Arabs are Israeli citizens. About 4.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. They are linked by ethnic and family ties, but the lines between Israel and Palestinian areas divide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
Click to expand...


They lost whatever war they were fighting a fucking long time ago. It's like if Japan never surrendered and just kept taking one beating after another. You don't do that to your people. Accept defeat and move on and rebuild. Japan succeeded very well using this tactic, and look at their country now, one of the best in the world in all respects.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lost whatever war they were fighting a fucking long time ago. It's like if Japan never surrendered and just kept taking one beating after another. You don't do that to your people. Accept defeat and move on and rebuild. Japan succeeded very well using this tactic, and look at their country now, one of the best in the world in all respects.
Click to expand...


How many Japanese were expelled from their country?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lost whatever war they were fighting a fucking long time ago. It's like if Japan never surrendered and just kept taking one beating after another. You don't do that to your people. Accept defeat and move on and rebuild. Japan succeeded very well using this tactic, and look at their country now, one of the best in the world in all respects.
Click to expand...


How many Japanese are living as second class citizens in Japan under a foreign government?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...
> 
> Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.
> 
> Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.
> 
> Check Mate!
Click to expand...




 Lets just say that Saudi needs Israeli doctors more that Israel needs Saudi. There is no game of numbers to be won the arabs cant work together.  Israel has all the pawns it wants in gaza and the west bank, and they will keep on mooching of the world rather than work for a living.   She is stronger now than she has ever been, and the arabs cant keep pace with the weapons development that Israel is leading the world in.

 Everyone but the islamonazis can see that Israel has constantly demanded nothing in the peace talks, and the Palestinians are demanding everything before they will even talk. 


 THEY HAVE LOST ONCE AGAIN AND THE WORLD IS SICK OF THEIR IMMATURITY.


----------



## Phoenall

Sweet_Caroline said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...
> 
> Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.
> 
> Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.
> 
> Check Mate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not obstinate in the peace talks.  On the contrary the Palestinians openly admit they are just staying in the talks until the last batch of prisoners are released.  And remember, the prisoners release was on condition of the talks starting.  What right have the Palestinians to stipulate they will not attend talks unless terrorists are released.  And shame, shame on Israel for giving in to the Pals' demands.
Click to expand...






 They should release them as plastic body bags marked with HAZMAT emblems all over them. Then say this is what happens when you blow yourself up.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...[SIZE="2][B][I][U][COLOR="Blue"]They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!![/COLOR][/U][/I][/B][/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
Click to expand...






 Why when they are doing a much better job of killing each other than the IDF ever could. Soon they wont be a problem as the weapons they have will explode in their faces and kill them in their thousands.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
Click to expand...


Actually, outside of the U.S., the rest of the world cares quite a bit about the plight of the Palestinians.

Even Cristiano Ronaldo supports Palestine.

Cristiano Ronaldo 'Snubs Israel Shirt Swap to Support Palestine' [VIDEO]


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) they started the violence against the Jews
> 
> 2) they are the losers in every war
> 
> 3)  the world is sick of their constant mooching rather than working for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli lies.
> 
> But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...





 The initial violence is detailed in the Koran and hadiths when their leader and inventor mass murdered the Jews in Medina. Then he had it made into a religious obligation to "KILL THE JEWS"

 1948-1949 they lost to the Jews           1967 they lost to the Jews            1973 they lost to the Jews.     In every case the UN had to come out and protect the poor little Palestinians from getting their buts well and truly kicked. Next time Israel might just say UP YOURS to the UN and keep on rolling on until the Palestinians cry uncle.

 They cant afford to pay their bills even though they get $billions from other countries as aid and charity, yet they can pay large pensions and salaries to terrorist prisoners . Time to pull the plug on their money.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why when they are doing a much better job of killing each other than the IDF ever could. Soon they wont be a problem as the weapons they have will explode in their faces and kill them in their thousands.
Click to expand...


Sociopath or Psychopath?  Not sure, but I sure wouldn't want this fellow supporting a cause I support.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...
> 
> Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.
> 
> Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.
> 
> Check Mate!
Click to expand...


More of your self-serving, wishful thinking. I've been hearing that kind of silliness from trolls for decades. With you it seems you actually believe it. That's not too bright.
Meanwhile generation after generation of Palestinian kids are exhorted by users (their Arab "brethren") and abusers (trolls and idiots) to "just hang in there." Pathetic, but then, that is your nature.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lost whatever war they were fighting a fucking long time ago. It's like if Japan never surrendered and just kept taking one beating after another. You don't do that to your people. Accept defeat and move on and rebuild. Japan succeeded very well using this tactic, and look at their country now, one of the best in the world in all respects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were expelled from their country?
Click to expand...





 How many Jews have been expelled from their countries over the last 100 years. And can you prove that every " Palestinian " is not a recent migrant to the area. Even though the evidence says that the majority are.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be the Palestinians who must surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lost whatever war they were fighting a fucking long time ago. It's like if Japan never surrendered and just kept taking one beating after another. You don't do that to your people. Accept defeat and move on and rebuild. Japan succeeded very well using this tactic, and look at their country now, one of the best in the world in all respects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Japanese are living as second class citizens in Japan under a foreign government?
Click to expand...





 How many Israelis are living in Israel as second class citizens under a foreign government, the same number none.

 But how many Palestinians are living in Palestine as second, third and fourth class citizens under a FASCIST ISLAMONAZI government      thousands


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, outside of the U.S., the rest of the world cares quite a bit about the plight of the Palestinians.
> 
> Even Cristiano Ronaldo supports Palestine.
> 
> Cristiano Ronaldo 'Snubs Israel Shirt Swap to Support Palestine' [VIDEO]
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh...

Some do...

But most really and truly don't give a rat's ass...

And, within the narrow universe of those who DO care, far fewer are willing to actually *do* anything effective about it...

As to sports figures coming-out one way or another, very few people give a rat's ass about that, either...

Doesn't mean a thing, in the grander scheme of things...

Not a blessed thing...

Next slide, please...


----------



## Kondor3

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a silly question, and soon you will get a silly answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...
> 
> Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.
> 
> Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.
> 
> Check Mate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your self-serving, wishful thinking. I've been hearing that kind of silliness from trolls for decades. With you it seems you actually believe it. That's not too bright.
> Meanwhile generation after generation of Palestinian kids are exhorted by users (their Arab "brethren") and abusers (trolls and idiots) to "just hang in there." Pathetic, but then, that is your nature.
Click to expand...

Talk about 'projecting'...

Gotta hand it to Pee-Bell, though... he/she/it sure doe talk-up a great '_The Sky is Falling_' routine, doesn't it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Makes ya quake with fear, doesn't it?


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so silly. Look at it as a game of Chess and the Palestinians as Pawns in a East/West conflict...The King of Saudi Arabia pulling the strings of the Arab League and feigning friendship to Israel...They know that in the end they will win the game of numbers...
> 
> Trying to save their own, they keep the conflict going just enough to satisfy the Jihadists.
> 
> Israel is very short of Pawns, and the Queen (America), her very strength and protection will soon leave her for her obstinacy in the peace talks.
> 
> Check Mate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your self-serving, wishful thinking. I've been hearing that kind of silliness from trolls for decades. With you it seems you actually believe it. That's not too bright.
> Meanwhile generation after generation of Palestinian kids are exhorted by users (their Arab "brethren") and abusers (trolls and idiots) to "just hang in there." Pathetic, but then, that is your nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about 'projecting'...
> 
> Gotta hand it to Pee-Bell, though... he/she/it sure doe talk-up a great '_The Sky is Falling_' routine, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes ya quake with fear, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


It amazes me that one poster could be full of so much shit. He's full of enough shit for 10 people, at least


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, outside of the U.S., the rest of the world cares quite a bit about the plight of the Palestinians.
> 
> Even Cristiano Ronaldo supports Palestine.
> 
> Cristiano Ronaldo 'Snubs Israel Shirt Swap to Support Palestine' [VIDEO]
Click to expand...






 One pampered prima donna is not the rest of the world, and you can bet he was fined by his club for his unsportsman like actions and made to apologise


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why when they are doing a much better job of killing each other than the IDF ever could. Soon they wont be a problem as the weapons they have will explode in their faces and kill them in their thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sociopath or Psychopath?  Not sure, but I sure wouldn't want this fellow supporting a cause I support.
Click to expand...





 Look at the evidence child and see that the Palestinians have amassed a large number of Syrian and Iranian weapons that can kill thousands. What are the odds that these weapons will explode in the hands of the terrorists and kill thousands of their own people. Then YOU with the rest of the ISLAMONAZIS will blame Israel for the deaths, and still blame them in 5 years time when the truth has been known since day one.

 Now who will be the sociopath or psychopath when the chips are down.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why when they are doing a much better job of killing each other than the IDF ever could. Soon they wont be a problem as the weapons they have will explode in their faces and kill them in their thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath or Psychopath?  Not sure, but I sure wouldn't want this fellow supporting a cause I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the evidence child and see that the Palestinians have amassed a large number of Syrian and Iranian weapons that can kill thousands. What are the odds that these weapons will explode in the hands of the terrorists and kill thousands of their own people. Then YOU with the rest of the ISLAMONAZIS will blame Israel for the deaths, and still blame them in 5 years time when the truth has been known since day one.
> 
> Now who will be the sociopath or psychopath when the chips are down.
Click to expand...


Where do you figure the Palestinians have "amassed" this large number of weapons that can kill thousands?  It is the Israelis that have amassed more weapons than countries with several-fold larger GDPs and populations.  Maybe, these will blow up in the terrorist's (the Israeli strain)  hands.  Then what?  (I guess it's best to humor him.)


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath or Psychopath?  Not sure, but I sure wouldn't want this fellow supporting a cause I support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the evidence child and see that the Palestinians have amassed a large number of Syrian and Iranian weapons that can kill thousands. What are the odds that these weapons will explode in the hands of the terrorists and kill thousands of their own people. Then YOU with the rest of the ISLAMONAZIS will blame Israel for the deaths, and still blame them in 5 years time when the truth has been known since day one.
> 
> Now who will be the sociopath or psychopath when the chips are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you figure the Palestinians have "amassed" this large number of weapons that can kill thousands?  It is the Israelis that have amassed more weapons than countries with several-fold larger GDPs and populations.  Maybe, these will blow up in the terrorist's (the Israeli strain)  hands.  Then what?  (I guess it's best to humor him.)
Click to expand...


Maybe you can give us some information about all the weapons smuggled by Iran to the "Palestinians."  After all, there were banners in the Gaza Strip thanking the Iranians for the weapons.  May all these weapons blow up when the "Palestinians" are trying to use them.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should she leave her homeland just because the government sucks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.

As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.

Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.

It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
Click to expand...


There are already 5 million or so Jews in Palestine.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are already 5 million or so Jews in Palestine.
Click to expand...


I guess Muslims will never admit that there is a country called Israel.  In their minds, Israel is actually "Palestine."  The Muslims have proven this thinking time and time again on this forum.

At least the Hindus face reality and realize that there is a country called Pakistan which was carved out of India so that the Muslims there could have a country of their own.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are already 5 million or so Jews in Palestine.
Click to expand...


There are perhaps 500,000 jews in the WB.

There are 6 million jews in Israel.


----------



## Kondor3

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are already 5 million or so Jews in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess Muslims will never admit that there is a country called Israel.  In their minds, Israel is actually "Palestine."  The Muslims have proven this thinking time and time again on this forum.
> 
> At least the Hindus face reality and realize that there is a country called Pakistan which was carved out of India so that the Muslims there could have a country of their own.
Click to expand...

That was an excellent, accurate and timely observation, Sally!


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, outside of the U.S., the rest of the world cares quite a bit about the plight of the Palestinians.
> 
> Even Cristiano Ronaldo supports Palestine.
> 
> Cristiano Ronaldo 'Snubs Israel Shirt Swap to Support Palestine' [VIDEO]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhhh...
> 
> Some do...
> 
> But most really and truly don't give a rat's ass...
> 
> And, within the narrow universe of those who DO care, far fewer are willing to actually *do* anything effective about it...
> 
> As to sports figures coming-out one way or another, very few people give a rat's ass about that, either...
> 
> Doesn't mean a thing, in the grander scheme of things...
> 
> Not a blessed thing...
> 
> Next slide, please...
Click to expand...


How about the Australians?


STONE COLD JUSTICE

Stone Cold Justice - Four Corners


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are already 5 million or so Jews in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Muslims will never admit that there is a country called Israel.  In their minds, Israel is actually "Palestine."  The Muslims have proven this thinking time and time again on this forum.
> 
> At least the Hindus face reality and realize that there is a country called Pakistan which was carved out of India so that the Muslims there could have a country of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an excellent, accurate and timely observation, Sally!
Click to expand...


Except that the Hindu Indians had a country to go to.  The Muslim and Christian Palestinians do not.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath or Psychopath?  Not sure, but I sure wouldn't want this fellow supporting a cause I support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the evidence child and see that the Palestinians have amassed a large number of Syrian and Iranian weapons that can kill thousands. What are the odds that these weapons will explode in the hands of the terrorists and kill thousands of their own people. Then YOU with the rest of the ISLAMONAZIS will blame Israel for the deaths, and still blame them in 5 years time when the truth has been known since day one.
> 
> Now who will be the sociopath or psychopath when the chips are down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you figure the Palestinians have "amassed" this large number of weapons that can kill thousands?  It is the Israelis that have amassed more weapons than countries with several-fold larger GDPs and populations.  Maybe, these will blow up in the terrorist's (the Israeli strain)  hands.  Then what?  (I guess it's best to humor him.)
Click to expand...




 Why do you think they have suddenly demanded gas masks from Israel if they don't have chemical/biological weapons courtesy of Syria and Iran. No gas cloud could travel the length of Israel and affect the Palestinians in gaza, so this means that they have the weapons and intend to use them against Israeli civilians but are scared of the fall out from them.
 So what if Israel is ahead of the Palestinians in weapons research and quantity, they put a lot of time into their defence from ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM. And as for blowing up in their hands, highly unlikely being better trained and having more intelligence than the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are already 5 million or so Jews in Palestine.
Click to expand...





 SO WHAT ?    It is no longer Palestine under International Law but Israel so get over it


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, outside of the U.S., the rest of the world cares quite a bit about the plight of the Palestinians.
> 
> Even Cristiano Ronaldo supports Palestine.
> 
> Cristiano Ronaldo 'Snubs Israel Shirt Swap to Support Palestine' [VIDEO]
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh...
> 
> Some do...
> 
> But most really and truly don't give a rat's ass...
> 
> And, within the narrow universe of those who DO care, far fewer are willing to actually *do* anything effective about it...
> 
> As to sports figures coming-out one way or another, very few people give a rat's ass about that, either...
> 
> Doesn't mean a thing, in the grander scheme of things...
> 
> Not a blessed thing...
> 
> Next slide, please...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Australians?
> 
> 
> STONE COLD JUSTICE
> 
> Stone Cold Justice - Four Corners
Click to expand...





 And once again we read the immortal words of reality according to the ISLAMONAZIS   "according to a palestinian source", No actual evidence of anything just the word of a known LIAR. Must be a racial trait of the Palestinians as they are caught out doing it all the time.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Muslims will never admit that there is a country called Israel.  In their minds, Israel is actually "Palestine."  The Muslims have proven this thinking time and time again on this forum.
> 
> At least the Hindus face reality and realize that there is a country called Pakistan which was carved out of India so that the Muslims there could have a country of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> That was an excellent, accurate and timely observation, Sally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the Hindu Indians had a country to go to.  The Muslim and Christian Palestinians do not.
Click to expand...





 The muslims did have a country to go to, they could have went to any in the M.E under the terms of the mandate. The Christians are still being persecuted by the muslims in gaza and the west bank, and many are fleeing to Israel were they are safe and treated properly.


----------



## MrMax

Here's why the Palestinians can't win: their Crayola crayons are way too big!


----------



## Sally

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was an excellent, accurate and timely observation, Sally!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Hindu Indians had a country to go to.  The Muslim and Christian Palestinians do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The muslims did have a country to go to, they could have went to any in the M.E under the terms of the mandate. The Christians are still being persecuted by the muslims in gaza and the west bank, and many are fleeing to Israel were they are safe and treated properly.
Click to expand...


And,  Phoenall, you will never see Haniya mentiion that the ancestors of these Hindus lived for thousands of years on that land while the so-called Palestinians are basically Johnnies-Come-Lately.  When you think of the enormous number of Hindus who had to leave everything behind, it really is a sad tale that the Muslims had to clamor for their own country. You probably remember the Muslim women who was not satisfied with the Muslims being given Pakistan for their own, but she wanted to see 850 million Hindus eradicated just so the Muslim could bring Islamic rule to India.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh...
> 
> Some do...
> 
> But most really and truly don't give a rat's ass...
> 
> And, within the narrow universe of those who DO care, far fewer are willing to actually *do* anything effective about it...
> 
> As to sports figures coming-out one way or another, very few people give a rat's ass about that, either...
> 
> Doesn't mean a thing, in the grander scheme of things...
> 
> Not a blessed thing...
> 
> Next slide, please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Australians?
> 
> 
> STONE COLD JUSTICE
> 
> Stone Cold Justice - Four Corners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again we read the immortal words of reality according to the ISLAMONAZIS   "according to a palestinian source", No actual evidence of anything just the word of a known LIAR. Must be a racial trait of the Palestinians as they are caught out doing it all the time.
Click to expand...


Australian Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Australians?
> 
> 
> STONE COLD JUSTICE
> 
> Stone Cold Justice - Four Corners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again we read the immortal words of reality according to the ISLAMONAZIS   "according to a palestinian source", No actual evidence of anything just the word of a known LIAR. Must be a racial trait of the Palestinians as they are caught out doing it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Australian Palestinians?
Click to expand...






 Possible as they refuse to give up their Palestinian moniker

 Did you read your own source child, the part were the only evidence is that of one of the boys mothers. Or as you prefer " a Palestinian source" has said blah, blah, blah


----------



## Kondor3

What the hell is Four Corners?

And... a so-called half-assed research sound-byte from the Australian Broadcasting Company?

Down to the bottom of the barrel and bringin' out the "C" team, are we?

Hey... let's open-up another boring thread about the Palestinian kids who got shoved into an outdoor holding-cage during a snowstorm...

Yeah... yeah... that's the ticket... let's just keep repeating the same old shit over and over again... yeah... that'll help...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
Click to expand...


Marines, doggy boy.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marines, doggy boy.
Click to expand...

Wartime?

And that's still not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marines, doggy boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wartime?
> 
> And that's still not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
Click to expand...


two wars...


----------



## Kondor3

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Palestinians" just have to surrender unconditionally. Only then will their prospects improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender is not in their vocabulary...*They will not bow!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.
> 
> They can die, then, for all anyone beyond their camp really cares.
> 
> They won't be missed.
Click to expand...


Just to refresh our memory of what the sidebar was, before your latest deflection.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines, doggy boy.
> 
> 
> 
> Wartime?
> 
> And that's still not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> two wars...
Click to expand...

More than I did...

Thank you for your service...

============================

Now, back to you pontificating over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and me letting some hot air out of your approach...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wartime?
> 
> And that's still not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> two wars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than I did...
> 
> Thank you for your service...
> 
> ============================
> 
> Now, back to you pontificating over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and me letting some hot air out of your approach...
Click to expand...


Now go back to your playing Kondor the Konqueror...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> two wars...
> 
> 
> 
> More than I did...
> 
> Thank you for your service...
> 
> ============================
> 
> Now, back to you pontificating over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and me letting some hot air out of your approach...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now go back to your playing Kondor the Konqueror...
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh... OK... we have a permanent antagonism on our hands.

Fine by me, Pee-Belle.

Any more doom-and-gloom (_Israel must make peace now, the sky is falling, the sky is falling_) prophecies relevant to the topic at hand, or shall we confine ourselves to your juvenile ad hominem attacks?


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than I did...
> 
> Thank you for your service...
> 
> ============================
> 
> Now, back to you pontificating over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and me letting some hot air out of your approach...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now go back to your playing Kondor the Konqueror...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhhh... OK... we have a permanent antagonism on our hands.
> 
> Fine by me, Pee-Belle.
> 
> Any more doom-and-gloom (_Israel must make peace now, the sky is falling, the sky is falling_) prophecies relevant to the topic at hand, or shall we confine ourselves to your juvenile ad hominem attacks?
Click to expand...


I don't fight girls, but you're an exceptional WAC...


----------



## Kondor3

Hey, guys...

I think I just made Pee-Belle's permanent Shit-List...

Time for a little celebration...

Hit it, girls...







A signal honor... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




All those doom-and-gloom predictions about Israel's future...

The Palestinian demographics threat...

The Iranians nuking Israel...

The Pakistanis nuking Israel...

Every Arab in the region acquiring nukes and nuking Israel...

The Ummah coming to the rescue...

The UN and the EU and BDS and... and... and... and...

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...

Lay some more doom-and-gloom on us, Pee-Belle...

Yer scarin' the hell outta us...


----------



## montelatici

What is a "signal honor"?


----------



## pbel

montelatici said:


> What is a "signal honor"?



A female Zionist cheer leader...please don't pick on her, she will, tattle tell.


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> Hey, guys...
> 
> I think I just made Pee-Belle's permanent Shit-List...
> 
> Time for a little celebration...
> 
> Hit it, girls...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A signal honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those doom-and-gloom predictions about Israel's future...
> 
> The Palestinian demographics threat...
> 
> The Iranians nuking Israel...
> 
> The Pakistanis nuking Israel...
> 
> Every Arab in the region acquiring nukes and nuking Israel...
> 
> The Ummah coming to the rescue...
> 
> The UN and the EU and BDS and... and... and... and...
> 
> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...
> 
> Lay some more doom-and-gloom on us, Pee-Belle...
> 
> Yer scarin' the hell outta us...



Ever since Sherri and Sunni Man stopped posting.
, we've had to rely on Peebel to entertain us with his drivel. 
Could you imagine how boring it would be here without him????

ALL HAIL PEEBEL !!!!


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guys...
> 
> I think I just made Pee-Belle's permanent Shit-List...
> 
> Time for a little celebration...
> 
> Hit it, girls...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A signal honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those doom-and-gloom predictions about Israel's future...
> 
> The Palestinian demographics threat...
> 
> The Iranians nuking Israel...
> 
> The Pakistanis nuking Israel...
> 
> Every Arab in the region acquiring nukes and nuking Israel...
> 
> The Ummah coming to the rescue...
> 
> The UN and the EU and BDS and... and... and... and...
> 
> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...
> 
> Lay some more doom-and-gloom on us, Pee-Belle...
> 
> Yer scarin' the hell outta us...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since Sherri and Sunni Man stopped posting.
> , we've had to rely on Peebel to entertain us with his drivel.
> Could you imagine how boring it would be here without him????
> 
> ALL HAIL PEEBEL !!!!
Click to expand...


Toast Toast!


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guys...
> 
> I think I just made Pee-Belle's permanent Shit-List...
> 
> Time for a little celebration...
> 
> Hit it, girls...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A signal honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those doom-and-gloom predictions about Israel's future...
> 
> The Palestinian demographics threat...
> 
> The Iranians nuking Israel...
> 
> The Pakistanis nuking Israel...
> 
> Every Arab in the region acquiring nukes and nuking Israel...
> 
> The Ummah coming to the rescue...
> 
> The UN and the EU and BDS and... and... and... and...
> 
> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...
> 
> Lay some more doom-and-gloom on us, Pee-Belle...
> 
> Yer scarin' the hell outta us...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since Sherri and Sunni Man stopped posting.
> , we've had to rely on Peebel to entertain us with his drivel.
> Could you imagine how boring it would be here without him????
> 
> ALL HAIL PEEBEL !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toast Toast!
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

Pbel, when you started this thread, did you have any idea it would reach over 3000 posts??


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Pbel, when you started this thread, did you have any idea it would reach over 3000 posts??



I am totally amazed, we've hashed out every point from every angle and thank my adversaries for your posts...I hope it goes on and wish the killing and hate would stop in the ME and here as well.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guys...
> 
> I think I just made Pee-Belle's permanent Shit-List...
> 
> Time for a little celebration...
> 
> Hit it, girls...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A signal honor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those doom-and-gloom predictions about Israel's future...
> 
> The Palestinian demographics threat...
> 
> The Iranians nuking Israel...
> 
> The Pakistanis nuking Israel...
> 
> Every Arab in the region acquiring nukes and nuking Israel...
> 
> The Ummah coming to the rescue...
> 
> The UN and the EU and BDS and... and... and... and...
> 
> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my...
> 
> Lay some more doom-and-gloom on us, Pee-Belle...
> 
> Yer scarin' the hell outta us...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since Sherri and Sunni Man stopped posting.
> , we've had to rely on Peebel to entertain us with his drivel.
> Could you imagine how boring it would be here without him????
> 
> ALL HAIL PEEBEL !!!!
Click to expand...

<snicker>


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> What is a "signal honor"?



A little off-topic but what the hell...

signal adjective

/&#712;s&#618;&#609;n&#601;l/ signal pronunciation American
  [only before noun] (formal) important

a signal honor

a signal failure of leadership

signal - Definition and pronunciation | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Do you mean like this shit for brains
> 
> MUSLIM GROOMING / PAEDO MAP | Kafir Crusaders
> 
> Child sex slave gangs in EVERY city in Britain: Thames Valley Police chief's warning after Oxford grooming horror - Mirror Online
> 
> » 500 Muslim Sex Grooming Cases In 6 Months


You gotta be shittin' me!

As proof, you use two racist blog rags that are more whack than you are?

And that's hard to do, because you're pretty out there!


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like this shit for brains
> 
> MUSLIM GROOMING / PAEDO MAP | Kafir Crusaders
> 
> Child sex slave gangs in EVERY city in Britain: Thames Valley Police chief's warning after Oxford grooming horror - Mirror Online
> 
> » 500 Muslim Sex Grooming Cases In 6 Months
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shittin' me!
> 
> As proof, you use two racist blog rags that are more whack than you are?
> 
> And that's hard to do, because you're pretty out there!
Click to expand...

Do you approve of the sex slave gangs? What are you defending them for?


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about parties or government.  She is talking about national identity.  If she does not want to be an Israel, she is free to leave.  If she wants to stay and be free to speak against the Israeli government, she can do so as an Israel, not as a palestinian.
> 
> Palestine does not want jews or Israeli spouses in their state to be.  How should Israel accept someone who identifies as an enemy of Israel and jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?

She is living in her homeland.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
Click to expand...




> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality._5_ As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> _5_  Ian Brownlie, The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law, The British Year Book of International Law, 1963, p. 220.



Does that mean that, by international law, Palestinian refugees are really Israelis?

Interesting thought.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> Do you approve of the sex slave gangs?


No, of coarse not.




Hossfly said:


> What are you defending them for?


I'm not.  Are you that vapid, to actually believe that's what I was doing?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you join the IDF, but I doubt you have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer to the sidebar being discussed.
> 
> As to having 'balls', I did join my own country's Army during wartime.
> 
> Not that I'm obliged to answer to you in such matters - merely clearing the air, mindful of our colleagues.
> 
> Have _you_ served your country in such a way?
> 
> Getting back to the sidebar at hand...
> 
> =======================================
> 
> The Palestinians can surrender...
> 
> Or they can die...
> 
> A matter of almost complete indifference, to much of the rest of the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marines, doggy boy.
Click to expand...





 I did not realise that land locked iraq had any marines


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like this shit for brains
> 
> MUSLIM GROOMING / PAEDO MAP | Kafir Crusaders
> 
> Child sex slave gangs in EVERY city in Britain: Thames Valley Police chief's warning after Oxford grooming horror - Mirror Online
> 
> » 500 Muslim Sex Grooming Cases In 6 Months
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shittin' me!
> 
> As proof, you use two racist blog rags that are more whack than you are?
> 
> And that's hard to do, because you're pretty out there!
Click to expand...




Shows the scope and severity of the problem doesn't it, and proves that islam is dangerous even in small doses.


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like this shit for brains
> 
> MUSLIM GROOMING / PAEDO MAP | Kafir Crusaders
> 
> Child sex slave gangs in EVERY city in Britain: Thames Valley Police chief's warning after Oxford grooming horror - Mirror Online
> 
> » 500 Muslim Sex Grooming Cases In 6 Months
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta be shittin' me!
> 
> As proof, you use two racist blog rags that are more whack than you are?
> 
> And that's hard to do, because you're pretty out there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve of the sex slave gangs? What are you defending them for?
Click to expand...






 We have dhimmi doing the same thing in the UK, trying to blame 11 and 12 year old girls for being raped by muslim gangs. One group in particular known as the chuckleheads, Aris will remember them, go so far as to deny that there is a problem and that the girls were to blame for enticing them in the first place.
 Just waiting now for billo to come up with Catholic Priests and their child abuse.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
Click to expand...






 And her homeland is Israel not Palestine, if she sees her homeland as Palestine then she should move to gaza or the west bank. That is if the Palestinians will have her


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality._5_ As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> _5_  Ian Brownlie, The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law, The British Year Book of International Law, 1963, p. 220.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean that, by international law, Palestinian refugees are really Israelis?
> 
> Interesting thought.
Click to expand...





 Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. Those that left or were expelled cant and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
 In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you approve of the sex slave gangs?
> 
> 
> 
> No, of coarse not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you defending them for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not.  Are you that vapid, to actually believe that's what I was doing?
Click to expand...





 That is exactly what you did rather than look at the content of the links, you could always try googling it yourself and see how many hits you get..............


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality._5_ As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.
> 
> _5_  Ian Brownlie, The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law, The British Year Book of International Law, 1963, p. 220.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean that, by international law, Palestinian refugees are really Israelis?
> 
> Interesting thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. *Those that left or were expelled cant* and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
> In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.
Click to expand...


People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that, by international law, Palestinian refugees are really Israelis?
> Interesting thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. *Those that left or were expelled cant* and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
> In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
Click to expand...


But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.

Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. *Those that left or were expelled cant* and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
> In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians started a war?

Where did you get that?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
Click to expand...


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
Click to expand...


Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!

Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.

So, you give your land back to the indians yet?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!
> 
> Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.
> 
> So, you give your land back to the indians yet?
Click to expand...


Of course you duck the question.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!
> 
> Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.
> 
> So, you give your land back to the indians yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you duck the question.
Click to expand...


Arabs attacked Israel and lost in '67, remember? 

So, you give your land back to the indians yet? Or are you ducking my question?


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!
> 
> Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.
> 
> *So, you give your land back to the indians yet*?
Click to expand...


I just love this logic...The way it works is through Demographics...Although America managed to decimate the Native peoples, their cousins from South America are slowly getting it back.

For example Texas recently became a Hispanic majority State...Demographers project Hispanics to be a majority in the USA within 50 years.

Yes the Indians are getting it back. Press one for Spanish...

Israel should learn that Demographics do their silent work at a steady pace.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!
> 
> Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.
> 
> So, you give your land back to the indians yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you duck the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs attacked Israel and lost in '67, remember?
> 
> So, you give your land back to the indians yet? Or are you ducking my question?
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that, by international law, Palestinian refugees are really Israelis?
> 
> Interesting thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. *Those that left or were expelled cant* and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
> In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
Click to expand...

When you leave your homes at the orders of Enemy Leadership, and run away to Enemy-controlled territory, and take sides with the Enemy, you've blown your chance at citizenship, and forfeited your lands and homes.

Don't like it?

Come and take them back.

If you can.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. *Those that left or were expelled cant* and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
> In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you leave your homes at the orders of Enemy Leadership, and run away to Enemy-controlled territory, and take sides with the Enemy, you've blown your chance at citizenship, and forfeited your lands and homes.
> 
> Don't like it?
> 
> Come and take them back.
> 
> If you can.
Click to expand...


Can you provide the law that says that?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> When you leave your homes at the orders of Enemy Leadership, and run away to Enemy-controlled territory, and take sides with the Enemy, you've blown your chance at citizenship, and forfeited your lands and homes.
> 
> Don't like it?
> 
> Come and take them back.
> 
> If you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide the law that says that?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Still, the concept is operative.

You can take whatever 'law' you have in mind to the contrary and use it to augment your supply of toilet paper, for all the good it is ever going to do you.

Such things happen all the time, everywhere around the world, when folks (1) choose the wrong side, (2) abandon their lands, (3) run to the enemy camp, and (4) take sides with the enemy.

Confiscation... seizure... forfeiture... spoils of war... doesn't matter what it's called.

And all the pissant set-aside legal standing in the world isn't gonna change that, Tinny.

If none of that is going to change anything, why pursue it?

Oh... of course... how rude of me... I've forgotten... old, set-aside legal standing is all you have to fight with, for all practical purposes... it's not like you can change things by force-of-arms.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that, by international law, Palestinian refugees are really Israelis?
> 
> Interesting thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as you well know, it does mean those Palestinians left in the country after the 1948/1949 arab war can take on Israeli citizenship. *Those that left or were expelled cant* and became stateless people until they took on the citizenship of any nation that took them in.
> In the case of the mandate of Palestine all indigenous of the British mandate became protected British citizens of Palestine until such time as they formed their own nations and proved they could exist on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
Click to expand...





 Depends on the reasons, and if they include abandonment and sedition then they do lose their homes for good. Every civilised nation has laws similar to this and enforce them, even the USA. Same with any enemy of the state can be dispossessed of their property and deported for their acts of warfare.

 Read the rules of war as written in International law and you see that the muslims don't have any real right of return now as the majority have died out.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
Click to expand...




 Yes the Palestinian muslims were amongst those that started the war in 1948

 It is what you are demanding of Israel, so when are you going to show them how.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you leave your homes at the orders of Enemy Leadership, and run away to Enemy-controlled territory, and take sides with the Enemy, you've blown your chance at citizenship, and forfeited your lands and homes.
> 
> Don't like it?
> 
> Come and take them back.
> 
> If you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide the law that says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nope.*
> 
> Still, the concept is operative.
> 
> You can take whatever 'law' you have in mind to the contrary and use it to augment your supply of toilet paper, for all the good it is ever going to do you.
> 
> Such things happen all the time, everywhere around the world, when folks (1) choose the wrong side, (2) abandon their lands, (3) run to the enemy camp, and (4) take sides with the enemy.
> 
> Confiscation... seizure... forfeiture... spoils of war... doesn't matter what it's called.
> 
> And all the pissant set-aside legal standing in the world isn't gonna change that, Tinny.
> 
> If none of that is going to change anything, why pursue it?
> 
> Oh... of course... how rude of me... I've forgotten... old, set-aside legal standing is all you have to fight with, for all practical purposes... it's not like you can change things by force-of-arms.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought.

You are just shoveling crap.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they do relinquish their homes when they start a war and then promptly lose it.
> 
> Btw, when are you giving your land back to the Indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the Palestinian muslims were amongst those that started the war in 1948
> 
> It is what you are demanding of Israel, so when are you going to show them how.
Click to expand...


You already said that.

The question is where did you get it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do not relinquish their homes by being temporarily away for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> When you leave your homes at the orders of Enemy Leadership, and run away to Enemy-controlled territory, and take sides with the Enemy, you've blown your chance at citizenship, and forfeited your lands and homes.
> 
> Don't like it?
> 
> Come and take them back.
> 
> If you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide the law that says that?
Click to expand...





 It is embodied in the rules of war that is International law, and no nation is obliged to take enemies who fought against them back as citizens. The UK is removing British citizenship from muslim migrants who have left to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. They are finding their British passports have been revoked and they cant return to the UK. They have lost all their property and money as a result of their actions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you leave your homes at the orders of Enemy Leadership, and run away to Enemy-controlled territory, and take sides with the Enemy, you've blown your chance at citizenship, and forfeited your lands and homes.
> 
> Don't like it?
> 
> Come and take them back.
> 
> If you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide the law that says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is embodied in the rules of war that is International law,* and no nation is obliged to take enemies who fought against them back as citizens. The UK is removing British citizenship from muslim migrants who have left to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. They are finding their British passports have been revoked and they cant return to the UK. They have lost all their property and money as a result of their actions.
Click to expand...


Where does it say that?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide the law that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope.*
> 
> Still, the concept is operative.
> 
> You can take whatever 'law' you have in mind to the contrary and use it to augment your supply of toilet paper, for all the good it is ever going to do you.
> 
> Such things happen all the time, everywhere around the world, when folks (1) choose the wrong side, (2) abandon their lands, (3) run to the enemy camp, and (4) take sides with the enemy.
> 
> Confiscation... seizure... forfeiture... spoils of war... doesn't matter what it's called.
> 
> And all the pissant set-aside legal standing in the world isn't gonna change that, Tinny.
> 
> If none of that is going to change anything, why pursue it?
> 
> Oh... of course... how rude of me... I've forgotten... old, set-aside legal standing is all you have to fight with, for all practical purposes... it's not like you can change things by force-of-arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
Click to expand...

Think what you like.

The 'demand' that I serve-up supporting 'law' was yours, not mine.

I've made no pretense that Israeli land-confiscation actions in the wake of 1948 were entirely supportable at-law... merely a matter of custom-and-usage, worldwide, historically, and within living memory.

Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?

Did the Palestinians not take the side of Israel's enemies?

Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture, as a result?

Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?

Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?

Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?

Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?

I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.

Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...

Your boys foolishly and spinelessly gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed after 1948... old law be damned.

There is no 'crap' to shovel.

I merely articulate Reality.

If you don't like Reality, feel free to take that up with the Israeli government, and the IDF.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you duck the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs attacked Israel and lost in '67, remember?
> 
> So, you give your land back to the indians yet? Or are you ducking my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...


When you can't compete, obfuscate. Arabs started the fighting in '48, '67, up until now they still shoot toy rockets at Israel.  And they've already lost and should surrender already. Whether you call them Palestinians or not, it's all the same thing. In fact, since there is no country called Palestine, the word Palestinian denotes a cultural group, if anything, like Asia and asians. Anyways, Israel is also in the area of Palestine, making them Palestinians also, just like Thais are Asian, so are the Chinese...


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs attacked Israel and lost in '67, remember?
> 
> So, you give your land back to the indians yet? Or are you ducking my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can't compete, obfuscate. Arabs started the fighting in '48, '67, up until now they still shoot toy rockets at Israel.  And they've already lost and should surrender already. Whether you call them Palestinians or not, it's all the same thing. In fact, since there is no country called Palestine, the word Palestinian denotes a cultural group, if anything, like Asia and asians. Anyways, Israel is also in the area of Palestine, making them Palestinians also, just like Thais are Asian, so are the Chinese...
Click to expand...


Holy smokescreen, Batman.

So how about answering the question?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope.*
> 
> Still, the concept is operative.
> 
> You can take whatever 'law' you have in mind to the contrary and use it to augment your supply of toilet paper, for all the good it is ever going to do you.
> 
> Such things happen all the time, everywhere around the world, when folks (1) choose the wrong side, (2) abandon their lands, (3) run to the enemy camp, and (4) take sides with the enemy.
> 
> Confiscation... seizure... forfeiture... spoils of war... doesn't matter what it's called.
> 
> And all the pissant set-aside legal standing in the world isn't gonna change that, Tinny.
> 
> If none of that is going to change anything, why pursue it?
> 
> Oh... of course... how rude of me... I've forgotten... old, set-aside legal standing is all you have to fight with, for all practical purposes... it's not like you can change things by force-of-arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> If you don't like it, feel free to take that up with the IDF.
Click to expand...




> *Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?*



No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't compete, obfuscate. Arabs started the fighting in '48, '67, up until now they still shoot toy rockets at Israel.  And they've already lost and should surrender already. Whether you call them Palestinians or not, it's all the same thing. In fact, since there is no country called Palestine, the word Palestinian denotes a cultural group, if anything, like Asia and asians. Anyways, Israel is also in the area of Palestine, making them Palestinians also, just like Thais are Asian, so are the Chinese...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman.
> 
> So how about answering the question?
Click to expand...


Ok, so what question do you want answered?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> If you don't like it, feel free to take that up with the IDF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...

Some Palestinian lands were, indeed, taken at gun-point.

Much as the Arabs took various parcels of Jewish land.

It's just that the Jews were much better at that than you were, and you're still pissed about getting your asses kicked, 66 years later.

Much Palestinian land, however, was conceded without firing a shot, nor even without so much as a harsh glance.

It was abandoned when your boys ran away and sided with the enemy.

The Jews merely batted clean-up afterwards, with a few juicy laws to formalize the process.

Had you (metaphorically) not run, nor taken sides with the enemy, you would not be sitting in those shitholes now.

The Palestinians who remained behind and did not take the side of the enemy, and who are now Israeli citizens, are adequate testimony that this is the case.

"A coward dies a thousand deaths (_in a refugee shithole for 66 years)_, the brave man dies but once."

Probably shouldn't have run, and chosen the wrong side, eh?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nope.*
> 
> Still, the concept is operative.
> 
> You can take whatever 'law' you have in mind to the contrary and use it to augment your supply of toilet paper, for all the good it is ever going to do you.
> 
> Such things happen all the time, everywhere around the world, when folks (1) choose the wrong side, (2) abandon their lands, (3) run to the enemy camp, and (4) take sides with the enemy.
> 
> Confiscation... seizure... forfeiture... spoils of war... doesn't matter what it's called.
> 
> And all the pissant set-aside legal standing in the world isn't gonna change that, Tinny.
> 
> If none of that is going to change anything, why pursue it?
> 
> Oh... of course... how rude of me... I've forgotten... old, set-aside legal standing is all you have to fight with, for all practical purposes... it's not like you can change things by force-of-arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> The 'demand' that I serve-up supporting 'law' was yours, not mine.
> 
> I've made no pretense that Israeli land-confiscation actions in the wake of 1948 were entirely supportable at-law... merely a matter of custom-and-usage, worldwide, historically, and within living memory.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not take the side of Israel's enemies?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture, as a result?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys foolishly and spinelessly gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed after 1948... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> *If you don't like Reality, feel free to take that up with the Israeli government, and the IDF.*
Click to expand...


A debate would be so cool.

I want Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, and Ben White on my team.

Who do you want on yours?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> The 'demand' that I serve-up supporting 'law' was yours, not mine.
> 
> I've made no pretense that Israeli land-confiscation actions in the wake of 1948 were entirely supportable at-law... merely a matter of custom-and-usage, worldwide, historically, and within living memory.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not take the side of Israel's enemies?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture, as a result?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys foolishly and spinelessly gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed after 1948... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> *If you don't like Reality, feel free to take that up with the Israeli government, and the IDF.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A debate would be so cool.
> 
> I want Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, and Ben White on my team.
> 
> Who do you want on yours?
Click to expand...

David ben Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan.

Although I really don't know just what it is, that you think you're debating.

Reality?


----------



## montelatici

Excellent post from an International forum that has a decidedly different point of view:

*"Oh, they rejected a plan that would have required the transfer a quarter of a million Christians and Muslims out of their homes in order to achieve a marginal Jewish majority (498,000 Jews versus 410,000 Muslims and Christians) in a Jewish state that would have left Jews ruling lover 45% of the Muslim and Christian population of Palestine. Wonder why they rejected the plan? What people in the frigging world would have accepted such a plan? There were more than twice as many non-Jews in Palestine and Jews were to receive more than half the land according to the UN plan. Are you insane claiming that the non-Jews should have accepted such a plan without a fight?"*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> The 'demand' that I serve-up supporting 'law' was yours, not mine.
> 
> I've made no pretense that Israeli land-confiscation actions in the wake of 1948 were entirely supportable at-law... merely a matter of custom-and-usage, worldwide, historically, and within living memory.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not take the side of Israel's enemies?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture, as a result?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys foolishly and spinelessly gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed after 1948... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> *If you don't like Reality, feel free to take that up with the Israeli government, and the IDF.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A debate would be so cool.
> 
> I want Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, and Ben White on my team.
> 
> Who do you want on yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David ben Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan.
> 
> Although I really don't know just what it is, that you think you're debating.
> 
> Reality?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> If you don't like it, feel free to take that up with the IDF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...





 Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?

 Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A debate would be so cool.
> 
> I want Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, and Ben White on my team.
> 
> Who do you want on yours?
> 
> 
> 
> David ben Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan.
> 
> Although I really don't know just what it is, that you think you're debating.
> 
> Reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
Click to expand...


What are you trying to debate??


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A debate would be so cool.
> 
> I want Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, and Ben White on my team.
> 
> Who do you want on yours?
> 
> 
> 
> David ben Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan.
> 
> Although I really don't know just what it is, that you think you're debating.
> 
> Reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
Click to expand...

Nope. I have no idea whether they have, although I'm hard-pressed to believe that this is so.

Much depends upon the topic for debate.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You are just shoveling crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> The 'demand' that I serve-up supporting 'law' was yours, not mine.
> 
> I've made no pretense that Israeli land-confiscation actions in the wake of 1948 were entirely supportable at-law... merely a matter of custom-and-usage, worldwide, historically, and within living memory.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not take the side of Israel's enemies?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture, as a result?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys foolishly and spinelessly gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed after 1948... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> *If you don't like Reality, feel free to take that up with the Israeli government, and the IDF.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A debate would be so cool.
> 
> I want Ilan Pappe, Noura Erakat, and Ben White on my team.
> 
> Who do you want on yours?
Click to expand...





 You have already lost as they like you will not accept anything but ISLAMONAZI  sources as factual.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> If you don't like it, feel free to take that up with the IDF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
Click to expand...


These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron?  Had they invaded?


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron?  Had they invaded?
Click to expand...


Where did anyone say anything about European Jews?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like.
> 
> Did the Palestinians not flee their homes and head for enemy territory?
> 
> Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?
> 
> Have those forfeitures been overturned in 66 years?
> 
> Have the Palestinians returned to those lands after 66 years?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of those forfeitures being overturned in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Any realistic prospect of the Palestinians returning to those lands in the foreseeable future?
> 
> I never once cited an operative 'law', Tinny, nor did I pretend that one exists, so there was no disingenuous statement or maneuvering on my part.
> 
> Everything is out in the open... the land was seized... 66 years ago...
> 
> Your boys gave the Israelis all the excuse they needed... old law be damned.
> 
> There is no 'crap' to shovel.
> 
> I merely articulate Reality.
> 
> If you don't like it, feel free to take that up with the IDF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Palestinians not lose their homes through a process of forfeiture?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
Click to expand...


It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron? Had they invaded?


If memory serves correctly, the Jews of Old Palestine (pre-1948) could be divided into four (4) groups; (1) the Jews whose families had resided there for many generations, (2) the Jews who immigrated there from Europe during the last half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, (3) the Jews who fled Europe just prior to the Holocaust, and (4) the surviving Jews who immigrated to Old Palestine after the Holocaust.

Amongst the Jews, land ownership in Old Palestine - including their holdings in Jerusalem and Hebron - fell largely to (1) and (2)...

Amongst the Jews, political leadership fell largely to (1) and (2)...

The newcomers didn't have much say-so during the early going, although the newcomers did much of the fighting in 1948 and beyond, in order to earn a share in the say-so...

Yes?

Hardly newcomers... and land-owners, to boot.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron? Had they invaded?
> 
> 
> 
> If memory serves correctly, the Jews of Old Palestine (pre-1948) could be divided into four (4) groups; (1) the Jews whose families had resided there for many generations, (2) the Jews who immigrated there from Europe during the last half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, (3) the Jews who fled Europe just prior to the Holocaust, and (4) the surviving Jews who immigrated to Old Palestine after the Holocaust.
> 
> Amongst the Jews, land ownership in Old Palestine - including their holdings in Jerusalem and Hebron - fell largely to (1) and (2)...
> 
> Amongst the Jews, political leadership fell largely to (1) and (2)...
> 
> The newcomers didn't have much say-so during the early going, although the newcomers did much of the fighting in 1948 and beyond, in order to earn a share in the say-so...
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Hardly newcomers... and land-owners, to boot.
Click to expand...


After substantial European immigration by 1922 the British census reported:

The 1922 British census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]

The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was* 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians*, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1931 British census reported:

The population was divided by religion as follows: *759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9*,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion.

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 UN census in 1945 reported:

Total population

Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000 
Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000 
International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000 
Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000 

It can be extrapolated that there were now, in 1945, about 500 thousand Jews.

So from 1922 the Jewish population rose nearly 8 fold through immigration, and you are trying to claim that the vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron *were not *Europeans  or their offspring that had arrived at least after 1922.  The Ottoman census of the 19th century showed Jews to be an even more miniscule percentage of the population of Palestine, by the way.  So, the Jews in Palestine in 1947 were at least 90% European, the Jewish Arabs (as they were referred to then) were a tiny minority of the Jewish population.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
Click to expand...


Can I have a link for that?


----------



## montelatici

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
Click to expand...



"Jordan withdrew its forces from its front posts overlooking the Sharon plain. In return, Israel agreed to allow Jordanian forces to take over positions in the West Bank previously held by Iraqi forces......The intended international enclave of Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan. The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem."

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. *You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Jordan withdrew its forces from its front posts overlooking the Sharon plain. In return, Israel agreed to allow Jordanian forces to take over positions in the West Bank previously held by Iraqi forces......The intended international enclave of Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan. The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem."
> 
> Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


But Jordan did attack Israel in 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sweet_Caroline said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
Click to expand...


In 19461948, Abdullah actually supported partition in order that the Arab allocated areas of the British Mandate for Palestine could be annexed into Transjordan. Abdullah went so far as to have secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed upon partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947.[16][17] On 17 November 1948, in a secret meeting with Meir, Abdullah stated that he wished to annex all of the Arab parts as a minimum, and would prefer to annex all of Palestine.[18] This idea of secret Zionist-Hashemite negotiations in 1947 was expanded upon by New Historian Avi Shlaim in his book Collusion Across The Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. This partition plan was supported by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin who preferred to see Abdullah's territory increased at the expense of the Palestinians rather than risk the creation of a Palestinian state headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.[5][19]

Abdullah I of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman

Where does it say that Jordan expelled the Jews?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 19461948, Abdullah actually supported partition in order that the Arab allocated areas of the British Mandate for Palestine could be annexed into Transjordan. Abdullah went so far as to have secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed upon partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947.[16][17] On 17 November 1948, in a secret meeting with Meir, Abdullah stated that he wished to annex all of the Arab parts as a minimum, and would prefer to annex all of Palestine.[18] This idea of secret Zionist-Hashemite negotiations in 1947 was expanded upon by New Historian Avi Shlaim in his book Collusion Across The Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. This partition plan was supported by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin who preferred to see Abdullah's territory increased at the expense of the Palestinians rather than risk the creation of a Palestinian state headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.[5][19]
> 
> Abdullah I of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


But Jordan DID attack Israel in 1948, (and again in 1967), so the agreement was void.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> David ben Gurion, Golda Meir, and Moshe Dayan.
> 
> Although I really don't know just what it is, that you think you're debating.
> 
> Reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. I have no idea whether they have, although I'm hard-pressed to believe that this is so.
> 
> Much depends upon the topic for debate.
Click to expand...


Surely you know about a few people who could articulate Israel's position.

I would be interested in seeing some presentations perhaps on Youtube.


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

I would have Dr Mordechai Kedar as one of the people arguing the case for Israel.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I have no idea whether they have, although I'm hard-pressed to believe that this is so.
> 
> Much depends upon the topic for debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you know about a few people who could articulate Israel's position.
> 
> I would be interested in seeing some presentations perhaps on Youtube.
Click to expand...


Why do you need a team of other people to debate with?
Can't you debate yourself?


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I have no idea whether they have, although I'm hard-pressed to believe that this is so.
> 
> Much depends upon the topic for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you know about a few people who could articulate Israel's position.
> 
> I would be interested in seeing some presentations perhaps on Youtube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you need a team of other people to debate with?
> Can't you debate yourself?
Click to expand...


Of course he can't.  Pffftinmore has trouble absorbing facts.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron? Had they invaded?
> 
> 
> 
> If memory serves correctly, the Jews of Old Palestine (pre-1948) could be divided into four (4) groups; (1) the Jews whose families had resided there for many generations, (2) the Jews who immigrated there from Europe during the last half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, (3) the Jews who fled Europe just prior to the Holocaust, and (4) the surviving Jews who immigrated to Old Palestine after the Holocaust.
> 
> Amongst the Jews, land ownership in Old Palestine - including their holdings in Jerusalem and Hebron - fell largely to (1) and (2)...
> 
> Amongst the Jews, political leadership fell largely to (1) and (2)...
> 
> The newcomers didn't have much say-so during the early going, although the newcomers did much of the fighting in 1948 and beyond, in order to earn a share in the say-so...
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Hardly newcomers... and land-owners, to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After substantial European immigration by 1922 the British census reported:
> 
> The 1922 British census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was* 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians*, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1931 British census reported:
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: *759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9*,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion.
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> UN census in 1945 reported:
> 
> Total population
> 
> Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
> Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
> International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
> Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
> 
> It can be extrapolated that there were now, in 1945, about 500 thousand Jews.
> 
> So from 1922 the Jewish population rose nearly 8 fold through immigration, and you are trying to claim that the vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron *were not *Europeans  or their offspring that had arrived at least after 1922.  The Ottoman census of the 19th century showed Jews to be an even more miniscule percentage of the population of Palestine, by the way.  So, the Jews in Palestine in 1947 were at least 90% European, the Jewish Arabs (as they were referred to then) were a tiny minority of the Jewish population.
Click to expand...


No, I claim no such thing. I suggested that most Jewish-controlled land was owned by (1) and (2) (or collectively, with its origins in such ownership) and that those same groups provided most of the high-level leadership of the times - and that this applied to Jerusalem and Hebron and other places.


Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
Click to expand...





 The Palestinians were involved as well as they fought alongside the Jordanian troops and killed many Jewish women and children. They did not waste any time moving in to the empty Jewish houses and claiming them as their own, now claiming that they lived there for the last 2,000 years


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It was just stolen at the point of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews were also stolen at the point of a gun in Jerusalem and Hebron, so will you ask the arab muslims to vacate east Jerusalem and Hebron so the Jews can have their property back ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the muslims will also lose the Temple mount and their proposed capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron?  Had they invaded?
Click to expand...






 Many were from original inhabitants families who had lived there for 4,000 years. It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes. The Palestinians can only trace theirs back 100 years at the most.
 They were living there as rightful indigenous land owners until the arab muslims invaded their property, raped their females, murdered their men and cast them out to die.

 It is the Palestinians who are the Invaders as the Jews were asked to come to Palestine by the lands rightful owners.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> These Jews were European, what were they doing in Jerusalem and Hebron? Had they invaded?
> 
> 
> 
> If memory serves correctly, the Jews of Old Palestine (pre-1948) could be divided into four (4) groups; (1) the Jews whose families had resided there for many generations, (2) the Jews who immigrated there from Europe during the last half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, (3) the Jews who fled Europe just prior to the Holocaust, and (4) the surviving Jews who immigrated to Old Palestine after the Holocaust.
> 
> Amongst the Jews, land ownership in Old Palestine - including their holdings in Jerusalem and Hebron - fell largely to (1) and (2)...
> 
> Amongst the Jews, political leadership fell largely to (1) and (2)...
> 
> The newcomers didn't have much say-so during the early going, although the newcomers did much of the fighting in 1948 and beyond, in order to earn a share in the say-so...
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Hardly newcomers... and land-owners, to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After substantial European immigration by 1922 the British census reported:
> 
> The 1922 British census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
> 
> The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was* 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians*, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]
> 
> 1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The 1931 British census reported:
> 
> The population was divided by religion as follows: *759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9*,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion.
> 
> 1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> UN census in 1945 reported:
> 
> Total population
> 
> Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
> Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
> International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
> Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
> 
> It can be extrapolated that there were now, in 1945, about 500 thousand Jews.
> 
> So from 1922 the Jewish population rose nearly 8 fold through immigration, and you are trying to claim that the vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron *were not *Europeans  or their offspring that had arrived at least after 1922.  The Ottoman census of the 19th century showed Jews to be an even more miniscule percentage of the population of Palestine, by the way.  So, the Jews in Palestine in 1947 were at least 90% European, the Jewish Arabs (as they were referred to then) were a tiny minority of the Jewish population.
Click to expand...





 Wasn't a 5 to 1 advantage enough for the muslims to start a war with the Jews, did they need their usual 15 to 1 or even 20 to 1 to have a chance of breaking even.

 You forget that the Mandate demanded that Britain facilitate the migration of Jews to Palestine as agreed with the arab muslim leaders. There was no invasion of European Jews at all, but a planned migration to work the land for everyone's benefit. The invasion came from the muslims who saw it as a means to acquire work during the depression and then to acquire fertile farmland when they wanted. Without this same mandate Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt would still be under British rule and the Palestinians would still be the Jews in the M.E.
 But I note you do not agree with the Jews and Christians from having free determination and a land of their own just the mongrel muslim terrorist scum who invaded the land over the last 1400 years.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Jordan withdrew its forces from its front posts overlooking the Sharon plain. In return, Israel agreed to allow Jordanian forces to take over positions in the West Bank previously held by Iraqi forces......The intended international enclave of Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan. The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem."
> 
> Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 And the so called Palestinians helped them to do it, and then stole the Jews property and homes.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 19461948, Abdullah actually supported partition in order that the Arab allocated areas of the British Mandate for Palestine could be annexed into Transjordan. Abdullah went so far as to have secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates to these meetings) that came to a mutually agreed upon partition plan independently of the United Nations in November 1947.[16][17] On 17 November 1948, in a secret meeting with Meir, Abdullah stated that he wished to annex all of the Arab parts as a minimum, and would prefer to annex all of Palestine.[18] This idea of secret Zionist-Hashemite negotiations in 1947 was expanded upon by New Historian Avi Shlaim in his book Collusion Across The Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. This partition plan was supported by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin who preferred to see Abdullah's territory increased at the expense of the Palestinians rather than risk the creation of a Palestinian state headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.[5][19]
> 
> Abdullah I of Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 So what were the arab muslim Palestinians doing at this time, if not assisting Jordan in the mass eviction of the Jews and the theft of their property . So the Jews right of return is backed by land deeds, something the arab muslim Palestinians never had.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I don't think that was said at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?


*(COMMENT)*


The big question is:  What would you debate?

Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.   


General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)

Whether we talk about the basic mandates of the San Remo Convention (1920), the adoption of the November Resolution of 1947, or the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970), they are all concepts and codifications of ideas that are not consistent with the Arab World.  They are, as YOU have often pointed out, something the "foreigners" did; not decisions the Arabs made or even the Palestinians made.  Such a discussion would avoid the central question:

Is the Arab World, any part of it, but to focus on the Israel-Palestinian Issue, truly ready for democracy?
If we look at the the League of Arab States, what do we see?



Do we see a wide ranging picture of success, demonstrating that the Arab Culture can unequivocally stand on its own two feet and further the cause of peace and stability?

Is it a picture of peace and stability?  
Or do we see a culture in chaos?
Even today, as we look at a country like Lebanon, we see just how dangerous and self destructive the Arab can be.



			
				Syria refugee crisis poses major threat to Lebanese stability: U.N. said:
			
		

> *(Reuters)* - An influx of almost 1 million refugees from Syria into neighboring Lebanon poses a serious threat to the already fragile country, but donor nations may not grasp the potential impact of further destabilization, a U.N. official said on Thursday.
> 
> "There is not a single country in the world today that is shouldering as much in proportion to its size as Lebanon," said Ninette Kelley, regional representative for Lebanon for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
> 
> "If this country is not bolstered, then the very real prospect of it collapsing and the conflict of Syria spreading full force to Lebanon becomes much more likely," she said during a visit to Washington.
> 
> Last month, top U.N. officials said that as Syria's grinding conflict enters its fourth bloody year, Syrians are set to replace Afghans as the world's largest refugee population.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ BY MISSY RYAN WASHINGTON Thu Mar 27, 2014


The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has, for more that half a century, grooming generation after generation in the medieval and hostile philosophies of the 16th Century Arab.  Year after year, the most productive export the HoAP has generated is the short range terrorist and insurgent.  And it has a stack of generations that know nothing more than to create turmoil and havoc.  It is not a nation or a culture that is founded on the principles of peace, prosperity, trade and commerce.  It is a nation that has, for more nearly a 100 years, began by teaching their children the art of the professional victim and it begins by a class in throwing rocks ---> and progresses through their life ---> to launching rockets.  They simply don't know any better.


The issues are much more basic than generally thought of in Treaty, Law, and strict compliance terms.  Such a debate has to separate what the HoAP believes culturally, and what they attempt to use as justification for the continued struggle that they initiated.

One has to come to terms with whether or not the HoAP can actually handle a democracy that can peacefully establish relations with non-Arab neighbors and operate a country that can peacefully transition from one periodically elected government - to the  next, without going into a major meltdown and upsetting the regional balance of peace.  Clearly, several countries in the Arab League cannot accomplish that.  

The question becomes then --- if there is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians cannot establish a nation that can stand on its own, in peace and tranquility, without causing a regional disruption, SHOULD it be allowed to establish a nation like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and now Egypt and Lebanon, which goes into chaos and meltdown periodically?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Whether we talk about the basic mandates of the San Remo Convention (1920), the adoption of the November Resolution of 1947, or the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970), they are all concepts and codifications of ideas that are not consistent with the Arab World.  They are, as YOU have often pointed out, something the "foreigners" did; not decisions the Arabs made or even the Palestinians made.  Such a discussion would avoid the central question:
> 
> Is the Arab World, any part of it, but to focus on the Israel-Palestinian Issue, truly ready for democracy?
> If we look at the the League of Arab States, what do we see?
> 
> 
> Do we see a wide ranging picture of success, demonstrating that the Arab Culture can unequivocally stand on its own two feet and further the cause of peace and stability?
> 
> Is it a picture of peace and stability?
> Or do we see a culture in chaos?
> Even today, as we look at a country like Lebanon, we see just how dangerous and self destructive the Arab can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria refugee crisis poses major threat to Lebanese stability: U.N. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(Reuters)* - An influx of almost 1 million refugees from Syria into neighboring Lebanon poses a serious threat to the already fragile country, but donor nations may not grasp the potential impact of further destabilization, a U.N. official said on Thursday.
> 
> "There is not a single country in the world today that is shouldering as much in proportion to its size as Lebanon," said Ninette Kelley, regional representative for Lebanon for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
> 
> "If this country is not bolstered, then the very real prospect of it collapsing and the conflict of Syria spreading full force to Lebanon becomes much more likely," she said during a visit to Washington.
> 
> Last month, top U.N. officials said that as Syria's grinding conflict enters its fourth bloody year, Syrians are set to replace Afghans as the world's largest refugee population.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ BY MISSY RYAN WASHINGTON Thu Mar 27, 2014
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has, for more that half a century, grooming generation after generation in the medieval and hostile philosophies of the 16th Century Arab.  Year after year, the most productive export the HoAP has generated is the short range terrorist and insurgent.  And it has a stack of generations that know nothing more than to create turmoil and havoc.  It is not a nation or a culture that is founded on the principles of peace, prosperity, trade and commerce.  It is a nation that has, for more nearly a 100 years, began by teaching their children the art of the professional victim and it begins by a class in throwing rocks ---> and progresses through their life ---> to launching rockets.  They simply don't know any better.
> 
> 
> The issues are much more basic than generally thought of in Treaty, Law, and strict compliance terms.  Such a debate has to separate what the HoAP believes culturally, and what they attempt to use as justification for the continued struggle that they initiated.
> 
> One has to come to terms with whether or not the HoAP can actually handle a democracy that can peacefully establish relations with non-Arab neighbors and operate a country that can peacefully transition from one periodically elected government - to the  next, without going into a major meltdown and upsetting the regional balance of peace.  Clearly, several countries in the Arab League cannot accomplish that.
> 
> The question becomes then --- if there is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians cannot establish a nation that can stand on its own, in peace and tranquility, without causing a regional disruption, SHOULD it be allowed to establish a nation like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and now Egypt and Lebanon, which goes into chaos and meltdown periodically?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Whether we talk about the basic mandates of the San Remo Convention (1920), the adoption of the November Resolution of 1947, or the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970), they are all concepts and codifications of ideas that are not consistent with the Arab World.  They are, as YOU have often pointed out, something the "foreigners" did; not decisions the Arabs made or even the Palestinians made.  Such a discussion would avoid the central question:
> 
> Is the Arab World, any part of it, but to focus on the Israel-Palestinian Issue, truly ready for democracy?
> If we look at the the League of Arab States, what do we see?
> 
> 
> Do we see a wide ranging picture of success, demonstrating that the Arab Culture can unequivocally stand on its own two feet and further the cause of peace and stability?
> 
> Is it a picture of peace and stability?
> Or do we see a culture in chaos?
> Even today, as we look at a country like Lebanon, we see just how dangerous and self destructive the Arab can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria refugee crisis poses major threat to Lebanese stability: U.N. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(Reuters)* - An influx of almost 1 million refugees from Syria into neighboring Lebanon poses a serious threat to the already fragile country, but donor nations may not grasp the potential impact of further destabilization, a U.N. official said on Thursday.
> 
> "There is not a single country in the world today that is shouldering as much in proportion to its size as Lebanon," said Ninette Kelley, regional representative for Lebanon for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
> 
> "If this country is not bolstered, then the very real prospect of it collapsing and the conflict of Syria spreading full force to Lebanon becomes much more likely," she said during a visit to Washington.
> 
> Last month, top U.N. officials said that as Syria's grinding conflict enters its fourth bloody year, Syrians are set to replace Afghans as the world's largest refugee population.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ BY MISSY RYAN WASHINGTON Thu Mar 27, 2014
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has, for more that half a century, grooming generation after generation in the medieval and hostile philosophies of the 16th Century Arab.  Year after year, the most productive export the HoAP has generated is the short range terrorist and insurgent.  And it has a stack of generations that know nothing more than to create turmoil and havoc.  It is not a nation or a culture that is founded on the principles of peace, prosperity, trade and commerce.  It is a nation that has, for more nearly a 100 years, began by teaching their children the art of the professional victim and it begins by a class in throwing rocks ---> and progresses through their life ---> to launching rockets.  They simply don't know any better.
> 
> 
> The issues are much more basic than generally thought of in Treaty, Law, and strict compliance terms.  Such a debate has to separate what the HoAP believes culturally, and what they attempt to use as justification for the continued struggle that they initiated.
> 
> One has to come to terms with whether or not the HoAP can actually handle a democracy that can peacefully establish relations with non-Arab neighbors and operate a country that can peacefully transition from one periodically elected government - to the  next, without going into a major meltdown and upsetting the regional balance of peace.  Clearly, several countries in the Arab League cannot accomplish that.
> 
> The question becomes then --- if there is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians cannot establish a nation that can stand on its own, in peace and tranquility, without causing a regional disruption, SHOULD it be allowed to establish a nation like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and now Egypt and Lebanon, which goes into chaos and meltdown periodically?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


A few questions for you.

What race is he discriminating against?
What specific part of his post do you see as racist?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except she is living in her homeland. Palestinian Jews can live in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
Click to expand...


and people in Croatia are no longer Ukrainian but Russian now.
Arabs in Israel are not palestinians, they are Israeli.  Those that are palestinian are under the authority of the PA and can run for office in the PA.  They are not eligible to vote or run for office in Israel.
It is like Canadians cannot vote or run for office in the US and vs.
Unless she is more than 65 yr old, her homeland is Israel.  If older than she was born in the mandate, which no longer exists.  If she was born in a camp as was part of a family reunification, she became an Israeli and is no longer a palestinian.
As a member of the Knesset, her homeland is Israel.  She is an Israeli, not a palestinian.


----------



## toastman

Montelatici, you are such a hoot. Rocco has never said anything racist, anti Arab or anti Islam, yet he always attacks his posts.
It's become obvious that he can't handle the simple truths about the Palestinians, so he resorts to person attack against the most intelligent and least hateful poster here.

Thanks monti AKA Defeat67 for showing us your true colors.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.



montelatici said:


> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.


*(COMMENT)*

But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.

Do you have a particular counter-point?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the palestinian state that confirms palestinian citizenship on it's people.
> In Israel the arabs are Israelis, not palestinians.  If she is in her homeland then she should say she is Israeli.  If she does not like being Israel, she has the right to leave.
> 
> As for palestinian jews...... Abbas won't accept any.  The PA/palestine is to be judenrein.
> 
> Jews were kicked out the the WB by Jordan.  There are no palestinian jews, they had to go to Israel or elsewhere, or convert.
> 
> It would be logical to give the jews palestinian citizenship, but that option was rejected.
> No jews in palestine!  It does not matter that jews used to live and own property before Jordan annex the WB.  It does not matter that settlements were build on land that was purchased, unregistered or state land.  Abbas, because of extremist pressure will have no palestinian jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and people in Croatia are no longer Ukrainian but Russian now.
> Arabs in Israel are not palestinians, they are Israeli.  Those that are palestinian are under the authority of the PA and can run for office in the PA.  They are not eligible to vote or run for office in Israel.
> It is like Canadians cannot vote or run for office in the US and vs.
> Unless she is more than 65 yr old, her homeland is Israel.  If older than she was born in the mandate, which no longer exists.  If she was born in a camp as was part of a family reunification, she became an Israeli and is no longer a palestinian.
> As a member of the Knesset, her homeland is Israel.  She is an Israeli, not a palestinian.
Click to expand...


It is like the non-whites under the control of white South African government could not vote in South Africa because they were citizens of various Bantustans that also under the control of white South Africa.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes.



Put down the crack pipe, dude!!

These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and people in Croatia are no longer Ukrainian but Russian now.
> Arabs in Israel are not palestinians, they are Israeli.  Those that are palestinian are under the authority of the PA and can run for office in the PA.  They are not eligible to vote or run for office in Israel.
> It is like Canadians cannot vote or run for office in the US and vs.
> Unless she is more than 65 yr old, her homeland is Israel.  If older than she was born in the mandate, which no longer exists.  If she was born in a camp as was part of a family reunification, she became an Israeli and is no longer a palestinian.
> As a member of the Knesset, her homeland is Israel.  She is an Israeli, not a palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is like the non-whites under the control of white South African government could not vote in South Africa because they were citizens of various Bantustans that also under the control of white South Africa.
Click to expand...


Haniya thinks she is fooling the viewers that she actually cared about the poor treatment of the Blacks in South Africa.  The only reason South Africa is being brought up by Muslims and their fellow travelers is that they are using the Apartheid in South Africa and dragging this Apartheid there to the "Palestinians" as a way to demonize the Israeli Jews -- nothing more, nothing less.  I wish we could have sent Haniya to Soweto to see what Apartheid really is.


----------



## José

That sorry bunch of albinos pathetically claiming Palestine as their ancient "homeland" would be a good joke if it hadn't cost the lives of so many *real* natives of the land in the last 100 years.


----------



## Sally

José;8871638 said:
			
		

> That sorry bunch of albinos pathetically claiming Palestine as their ancient "homeland" would be a good joke if it hadn't cost the lives of so many *real* natives of the land in the last 100 years.



Why, Jose, your good buddies have murdered millions of innocent people.  I guess you just close your eyes to this.  Has anyone even seen Jose mention that over 150,000 have been killed in Syria alone in the last three years?  Of course not, because Jose remains comatose to what his friends are doing since the Jews are not involved.  You are fooling no one, Jose.


----------



## aris2chat

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> and people in Croatia are no longer Ukrainian but Russian now.
> Arabs in Israel are not palestinians, they are Israeli.  Those that are palestinian are under the authority of the PA and can run for office in the PA.  They are not eligible to vote or run for office in Israel.
> It is like Canadians cannot vote or run for office in the US and vs.
> Unless she is more than 65 yr old, her homeland is Israel.  If older than she was born in the mandate, which no longer exists.  If she was born in a camp as was part of a family reunification, she became an Israeli and is no longer a palestinian.
> As a member of the Knesset, her homeland is Israel.  She is an Israeli, not a palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is like the non-whites under the control of white South African government could not vote in South Africa because they were citizens of various Bantustans that also under the control of white South Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haniya thinks she is fooling the viewers that she actually cared about the poor treatment of the Blacks in South Africa.  The only reason South Africa is being brought up by Muslims and their fellow travelers is that they are using the Apartheid in South Africa and dragging this Apartheid there to the "Palestinians" as a way to demonize the Israeli Jews -- nothing more, nothing less.  I wish we could have sent Haniya to Soweto to see what Apartheid really is.
Click to expand...


Representation if government can take many forms depending on the country.
In Lebanon, people vote according to their religion and their family's town or origin.  Certain positions are limited to certain religions or sects.  It maintains a balance and prevents change in demographics from shoving minorities out.   
England has a house of lords and a house of commons.  In Australia there is separate representation of indigenous people.  Canada has French, English and native divisions.
Every country is different.  Even the US restricts voting in primaries to registered parties, you can't vote across party lines.  There are also people who are not allowed to vote, they don't have the right to representation.  People can only vote for candidates on their state ballot, not ballots from other states.  It is not apartheid to say someone registered in CA cannot vote in a FL election, or pay different taxes or that laws vary in different areas.
Middle east is not the US.  Israel is not Saudi Arabia.  Palestinians are not Israeli.  With regards to palestinians WB is not gaza and those in the camps differ from the PA.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sweet_Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Jordan not the Palestinians who expelled the Jews. You have to remember that Israel and Jordan had an agreement that the West Bank would be given to Jordan if Jordan did not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have a link for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Jordan withdrew its forces from its front posts overlooking the Sharon plain. In return, Israel agreed to allow Jordanian forces to take over positions in the West Bank previously held by Iraqi forces......The intended international enclave of Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan. The Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of East Jerusalem."
> 
> Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 So were does it say that the Palestinians did not assist in the expulsion of the Jews from all of Jerusalem ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Whether we talk about the basic mandates of the San Remo Convention (1920), the adoption of the November Resolution of 1947, or the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970), they are all concepts and codifications of ideas that are not consistent with the Arab World.  They are, as YOU have often pointed out, something the "foreigners" did; not decisions the Arabs made or even the Palestinians made.  Such a discussion would avoid the central question:
> 
> Is the Arab World, any part of it, but to focus on the Israel-Palestinian Issue, truly ready for democracy?
> If we look at the the League of Arab States, what do we see?
> 
> 
> Do we see a wide ranging picture of success, demonstrating that the Arab Culture can unequivocally stand on its own two feet and further the cause of peace and stability?
> 
> Is it a picture of peace and stability?
> Or do we see a culture in chaos?
> Even today, as we look at a country like Lebanon, we see just how dangerous and self destructive the Arab can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria refugee crisis poses major threat to Lebanese stability: U.N. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(Reuters)* - An influx of almost 1 million refugees from Syria into neighboring Lebanon poses a serious threat to the already fragile country, but donor nations may not grasp the potential impact of further destabilization, a U.N. official said on Thursday.
> 
> "There is not a single country in the world today that is shouldering as much in proportion to its size as Lebanon," said Ninette Kelley, regional representative for Lebanon for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
> 
> "If this country is not bolstered, then the very real prospect of it collapsing and the conflict of Syria spreading full force to Lebanon becomes much more likely," she said during a visit to Washington.
> 
> Last month, top U.N. officials said that as Syria's grinding conflict enters its fourth bloody year, Syrians are set to replace Afghans as the world's largest refugee population.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ BY MISSY RYAN WASHINGTON Thu Mar 27, 2014
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has, for more that half a century, grooming generation after generation in the medieval and hostile philosophies of the 16th Century Arab.  Year after year, the most productive export the HoAP has generated is the short range terrorist and insurgent.  And it has a stack of generations that know nothing more than to create turmoil and havoc.  It is not a nation or a culture that is founded on the principles of peace, prosperity, trade and commerce.  It is a nation that has, for more nearly a 100 years, began by teaching their children the art of the professional victim and it begins by a class in throwing rocks ---> and progresses through their life ---> to launching rockets.  They simply don't know any better.
> 
> 
> The issues are much more basic than generally thought of in Treaty, Law, and strict compliance terms.  Such a debate has to separate what the HoAP believes culturally, and what they attempt to use as justification for the continued struggle that they initiated.
> 
> One has to come to terms with whether or not the HoAP can actually handle a democracy that can peacefully establish relations with non-Arab neighbors and operate a country that can peacefully transition from one periodically elected government - to the  next, without going into a major meltdown and upsetting the regional balance of peace.  Clearly, several countries in the Arab League cannot accomplish that.
> 
> The question becomes then --- if there is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians cannot establish a nation that can stand on its own, in peace and tranquility, without causing a regional disruption, SHOULD it be allowed to establish a nation like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and now Egypt and Lebanon, which goes into chaos and meltdown periodically?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
Click to expand...





 Where is the racism in this reply ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> She is living in her homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and people in Croatia are no longer Ukrainian but Russian now.
> Arabs in Israel are not palestinians, they are Israeli.  Those that are palestinian are under the authority of the PA and can run for office in the PA.  They are not eligible to vote or run for office in Israel.
> It is like Canadians cannot vote or run for office in the US and vs.
> Unless she is more than 65 yr old, her homeland is Israel.  If older than she was born in the mandate, which no longer exists.  If she was born in a camp as was part of a family reunification, she became an Israeli and is no longer a palestinian.
> As a member of the Knesset, her homeland is Israel.  She is an Israeli, not a palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is like the non-whites under the control of white South African government could not vote in South Africa because they were citizens of various Bantustans that also under the control of white South Africa.
Click to expand...





 IRRELEVENT as she was elected by Israelis to represent them in the Israeli parliament, For this to happen she had to be Israeli. If she was palestinian then she would not have been eligible for election and would be in Israel illegally. Her homeland of May 1948 was Israel and not Palestine as that did not exist before 1988 under International law. Any arab living in Israel that considers themselves Palestinian should be deported from Israel and all their goods forfeited.


----------



## Phoenall

José;8871625 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
Click to expand...





 Have you the results of their DNA tests to back up your claim ?

 They are Jews and under the terms of the Mandate and Israeli law they can migrate to Israel if they so want.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Firstly, "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial."

Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, What do think of the Irish?  Though often starving, they fought as terrorists or freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) losing every war against the Protestant settlers for centuries.  The British referred to the Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC) in much the same way you refer to the HoAP.  I just found a few anti-Irish quotes from long ago and recnt:

"They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels". "

"Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued. ."

And quite recently:

In 2002, English journalist Julie Burchill wrote a column in The Guardian where she described Ireland as being synonymous with "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women."

Sound familiar?

Anti-Irish sentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Point is, today those quotes are recognized as racist by almost anyone except maybe an Ulsterman.  What you are writing about the non-Jews of Palestine is equally racist.


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started a war?
> 
> Where did you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!
> 
> Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.
> 
> *So, you give your land back to the indians yet*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love this logic...The way it works is through Demographics...Although America managed to decimate the Native peoples, their cousins from South America are slowly getting it back.
> 
> For example Texas recently became a Hispanic majority State...Demographers project Hispanics to be a majority in the USA within 50 years.
> 
> Yes the Indians are getting it back. Press one for Spanish...
> 
> Israel should learn that Demographics do their silent work at a steady pace.
Click to expand...

The big difference, Jarhead, is the Hispanics haven't threatened to run the Texicans into the sea or make a charter to murder all non-Hispanics in Texas. In fact, we Texans get along with the Hispanics pretty well. I know there is a heap of inter-marriages so you can toss out that part of your "demographics".


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> José;8871625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you the results of their DNA tests to back up your claim ?
> 
> They are Jews and under the terms of the Mandate and Israeli law they can migrate to Israel if they so want.
Click to expand...

Clowns?

How are these people clowns?

I agree that they don't entirely conform to stereotypical Jewish appearances, but...

Do we know their ethnic origins?

Are they the descendants of non-Hebrew Jewish converts?

Are they the descendants of the original Hebrew Jewish tribes and Diaspora?

Are they hybrids, and a mixture of the two?

Considering the mobility of populations and their wide-ranging admixture over the centuries, I think I'd want to wait for DNA test results, actually.


----------



## Sally

Kondor3 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;8871625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the results of their DNA tests to back up your claim ?
> 
> They are Jews and under the terms of the Mandate and Israeli law they can migrate to Israel if they so want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clowns?
> 
> How are these people clowns?
> 
> I agree that they don't entirely conform to stereotypical Jewish appearances, but...
> 
> Do we know their ethnic origins?
> 
> Are they the descendants of non-Hebrew Jewish converts?
> 
> Are they the descendants of the original Hebrew Jewish tribes and Diaspora?
> 
> Are they hybrids, and a mixture of the two?
> 
> Considering the mobility of populations and their wide-ranging admixture over the centuries, I think I'd want to wait for DNA test results, actually.
Click to expand...



King David had red hair just like the kid in the picture.  DNA tests really show a lot about a person's origin.  I was readubg about a Black man here in Los Angeles who took a DNA test and he found out that his roots were actually from a different part of Africa than he thought there were, and the DNA results showed that he was mainly from an Ashkenazi woman.  Don't forget that supposedly we all came out of Africa from one man and one women (who didn't even live at the same time), and the further our ancestors moved away from the Equator, the lighter they became.  Jose, himself, should take a DNA test and he might find out that he has Jewish roots.  Many Hispanics in the American Southwest are getting DNA tests to see if they have Jewish roots.  Now they understand why there was always a clean white tablecloth with candles on Friday nights (a custom that apparently went on for generations and generations).  Some of them have become Orthodox.  A priest is now wearing a Star of David with his Crucifix. Even the Rabbi in Tijuana, Mexico found out he was actually Jewish and consequently went to Rabbinical School.


----------



## SAYIT

José;8871625 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
Click to expand...


You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:

Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.

Quote: Originally Posted by José
How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?

At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.

God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.

Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.

Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.


Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT  
Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:

Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found. 

Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial."
> 
> Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Secondly, What do think of the Irish?  Though often starving, they fought as terrorists or freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) losing every war against the Protestant settlers for centuries.  The British referred to the Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC) in much the same way you refer to the HoAP.  I just found a few anti-Irish quotes from long ago and recnt:
> 
> "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels". "
> 
> "Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued. ."
> 
> And quite recently:
> 
> In 2002, English journalist Julie Burchill wrote a column in The Guardian where she described Ireland as being synonymous with "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women."
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Anti-Irish sentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Point is, today those quotes are recognized as racist by almost anyone except maybe an Ulsterman.  What you are writing about the non-Jews of Palestine is equally racist.
Click to expand...


You're nothing but a lying propagandist. There was NOTHING racist in his post and you have yet to point out what he said that was.
Best thing for an uneducated donkey like you would be to shut up and listen to people who know what they're talking about...

Oh whoops, was that racist??


----------



## toastman

SAYIT said:


> José;8871625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
Click to expand...


Jose is an expert in what I call 'drive by drivel'
He posts something full of drivel propaganda, but before you can respond to him with some sense, he has already dissapeared.


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> José;8871625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> It does not matter if they are European or not they can trace their ancestry back to Israel pre diaspora from DNA haplotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
Click to expand...


Well princess here are some Palestinian Haplotypes for you.


Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. *A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome *pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation,


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial."
> 
> Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Secondly, What do think of the Irish?  Though often starving, they fought as terrorists or freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) losing every war against the Protestant settlers for centuries.  The British referred to the Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC) in much the same way you refer to the HoAP.  I just found a few anti-Irish quotes from long ago and recnt:
> 
> "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels". "
> 
> "Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued. ."
> 
> And quite recently:
> 
> In 2002, English journalist Julie Burchill wrote a column in The Guardian where she described Ireland as being synonymous with "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women."
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Anti-Irish sentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Point is, today those quotes are recognized as racist by almost anyone except maybe an Ulsterman.  What you are writing about the non-Jews of Palestine is equally racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a lying propagandist. There was NOTHING racist in his post and you have yet to point out what he said that was.
> Best thing for an uneducated donkey like you would be to shut up and listen to people who know what they're talking about...
> 
> Oh whoops, was that racist??
Click to expand...


Claiming that an entire  people are inherently backward and violent, without considering the circumstances they are in, is racist.  Jews, were violent terrorists in the minds of the British when they murdered British soldiers, British civilians and the UN's Folke Bernadotte, but to call the whole Jewish community backward and violent because of this would also be racist.

It is interesting to note that most of you IROWs resort to personal insults when you cannot dispute facts presented to you.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial."
> 
> Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Secondly, What do think of the Irish?  Though often starving, they fought as terrorists or freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) losing every war against the Protestant settlers for centuries.  The British referred to the Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC) in much the same way you refer to the HoAP.  I just found a few anti-Irish quotes from long ago and recnt:
> 
> "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels". "
> 
> "Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued. ."
> 
> And quite recently:
> 
> In 2002, English journalist Julie Burchill wrote a column in The Guardian where she described Ireland as being synonymous with "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women."
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Anti-Irish sentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Point is, today those quotes are recognized as racist by almost anyone except maybe an Ulsterman.  What you are writing about the non-Jews of Palestine is equally racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a lying propagandist. There was NOTHING racist in his post and you have yet to point out what he said that was.
> Best thing for an uneducated donkey like you would be to shut up and listen to people who know what they're talking about...
> 
> Oh whoops, was that racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming that an entire  people are inherently backward and violent, without considering the circumstances they are in, is racist.  Jews, were violent terrorists in the minds of the British when they murdered British soldiers, British civilians and the UN's Folke Bernadotte, but to call the whole Jewish community backward and violent because of this would also be racist.
> 
> It is interesting to note that most of you IROWs resort to personal insults when you cannot dispute facts presented to you.
Click to expand...


I'm curious.  Can you tell us what circumstances the rebels floodiing into Syria were living under that they are having no problem murdering innocent human being?.  Perhaps you can tell us the horrendous circumstances those Muslims were living under in Egypt that they had to go after the Egyptian Copts.  There are people all over the world who are living under horrendous circumstance and yet you don't see them rising up and murdering people.  As far as insults, I guess you don't consider it an insult when you post constantly that many are using Israeli propaganda as if everything you say is like the most truthful thing in this entire world.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a lying propagandist. There was NOTHING racist in his post and you have yet to point out what he said that was.
> Best thing for an uneducated donkey like you would be to shut up and listen to people who know what they're talking about...
> 
> Oh whoops, was that racist??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming that an entire  people are inherently backward and violent, without considering the circumstances they are in, is racist.  Jews, were violent terrorists in the minds of the British when they murdered British soldiers, British civilians and the UN's Folke Bernadotte, but to call the whole Jewish community backward and violent because of this would also be racist.
> 
> It is interesting to note that most of you IROWs resort to personal insults when you cannot dispute facts presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious.  Can you tell us what circumstances the rebels floodiing into Syria were living under that they are having no problem murdering innocent human being?.  Perhaps you can tell us the horrendous circumstances those Muslims were living under in Egypt that they had to go after the Egyptian Copts.  There are people all over the world who are living under horrendous circumstance and yet you don't see them rising up and murdering people.  As far as insults, I guess you don't consider it an insult when you post constantly that many are using Israeli propaganda as if everything you say is like the most truthful thing in this entire world.
Click to expand...


Everything I post is fact.  Most of you re-post Israeli produced propaganda, that's all that is available in the U.S., and you don't read marginally more even-handed British, Australian, NZ, Indian  and Irish  media and cannot read the actually even-handed media of continental Europe.

Since you always bring out Muslim on Christian violence that has nothing to do with Palestine I will post this fact.  Christians are not always nice to Muslims, by the way:

I hope the NYT is not considered Islamic propaganda by IROWs.

"BODA, Central African Republic  There is only one neighborhood in Boda where Muslims are safe from the bullets and machetes of Christian militia fighters. Many who ventured out were killed, their throats slit or their cars showered with gunfire.

Even the dead must obey: Muslim bodies are buried behind an old warehouse because the traditional Muslim cemetery is now off limits....Boda is home to one of the largest Muslim communities left in the Central African Republic. About 4,000 Muslims are trapped here, and they say they are suffering and just want to leave after months of being harassed by the militia. Throughout the country, others share their plight."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/w...r-central-african-republics-muslims.html?_r=0


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*Hey, when reading this: Substitute Rocco, Phoenall, especially Kondor the Konqueror and don't forge Sniffer and MJ...*
*    Attila the Dunn**

There is a guy named Dunn
Who writes posts like Attila the Hun
He makes up his lies in his daily routine
Sending every Palestinian to a nice Guillotine...

He professes peace at the point of a Gun
He says give us our land that we stole fair and square
He says let us kill every Palestinian under the Sun
He says please don't deny us our fun let's be fair

For my name is Attila the Dunn!*


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hey, when reading this: Substitute Rocco, Phoenall, especially Kondor the Konqueror and don't forge Sniffer and MJ...*
> *    Attila the Dunn**
> 
> There is a guy named Dunn
> Who writes posts like Attila the Hun
> He makes up his lies in his daily routine
> Sending every Palestinian to a nice Guillotine...
> 
> He professes peace at the point of a Gun
> He says give us our land that we stole fair and square
> He says let us kill every Palestinian under the Sun
> He says please don't deny us our fun let's be fair
> 
> For my name is Attila the Dunn!*
Click to expand...


Pbel, please don't start in again with this nonsense.  By the way, folks, there has not been a poster Dunn in years and years and years, but many posters who ever crossed Pbel or disagreed with him found themselves included in Pbel's silly poems.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, when reading this: Substitute Rocco, Phoenall, especially Kondor the Konqueror and don't forge Sniffer and MJ...*
> *    Attila the Dunn**
> 
> There is a guy named Dunn
> Who writes posts like Attila the Hun
> He makes up his lies in his daily routine
> Sending every Palestinian to a nice Guillotine...
> 
> He professes peace at the point of a Gun
> He says give us our land that we stole fair and square
> He says let us kill every Palestinian under the Sun
> He says please don't deny us our fun let's be fair
> 
> For my name is Attila the Dunn!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pbel, please don't start in again with this nonsense.  By the way, folks, there has not been a poster Dunn in years and years and years, but many posters who ever crossed Pbel or disagreed with him found themselves included in Pbel's silly poems.
Click to expand...


You're lucky I don't waste them on airheads.


----------



## SAYIT

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;8871625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well princess here are some Palestinian Haplotypes for you.
> 
> 
> Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. *A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome *pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation,
Click to expand...


I have something not only more interesting than that but far more relevant to your post than yours is to mine:

*id·i·ot*
noun: idiot; 
1. a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More
informaldope, ninny, nincompoop, chump, dimwit, dumbo, dummy, dum-dum, loon, dork, sap, jackass, blockhead, jughead, bonehead, knucklehead, fathead, butthead, numbskull, numbnuts, dumb-ass, doofus, clod, dunderhead, ditz, lummox, knuckle-dragger, dipstick, thickhead, meathead, meatball, wooden-head, airhead, pinhead, lamer, lamebrain, peabrain, birdbrain, mouth-breather, scissorbill, jerk, nerd, donkey, nitwit, twit, boob, twerp, hoser, schmuck, bozo, turkey, chowderhead, dingbat, mook;


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't compete, obfuscate. Arabs started the fighting in '48, '67, up until now they still shoot toy rockets at Israel.  And they've already lost and should surrender already. Whether you call them Palestinians or not, it's all the same thing. In fact, since there is no country called Palestine, the word Palestinian denotes a cultural group, if anything, like Asia and asians. Anyways, Israel is also in the area of Palestine, making them Palestinians also, just like Thais are Asian, so are the Chinese...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman.
> 
> So how about answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so what question do you want answered?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians started a war?

Where did you get that?


----------



## SAYIT

toastman said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;8871625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put down the crack pipe, dude!!
> 
> These clowns are about as "semitic" as Emperor Hiroito of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jose is an expert in what I call 'drive by drivel'
> He posts something full of drivel propaganda, but before you can respond to him with some sense, he has already dissapeared.
Click to expand...


Ah, the Disappearing Driveller. Got it now. Thanks.


----------



## toastman

SAYIT said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jose is an expert in what I call 'drive by drivel'
> He posts something full of drivel propaganda, but before you can respond to him with some sense, he has already dissapeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the Disappearing Driveller. Got it now. Thanks.
Click to expand...


And he also likes to look up pictures if Jewish boys. This is the fourth or fifth time he has posted one.


----------



## pbel

SAYIT said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> 
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> 
> God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.
> 
> Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.
> 
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well princess here are some Palestinian Haplotypes for you.
> 
> 
> Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. *A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome *pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have something not only more interesting than that but far more relevant to your post than yours is to mine:
> 
> *id·i·ot*
> noun: idiot;
> 1. a stupid person.
> synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More
> informaldope, ninny, nincompoop, chump, dimwit, dumbo, dummy, dum-dum, loon, dork, sap, jackass, blockhead, jughead, bonehead, knucklehead, fathead, butthead, numbskull, numbnuts, dumb-ass, doofus, clod, dunderhead, ditz, lummox, knuckle-dragger, dipstick, thickhead, meathead, meatball, wooden-head, airhead, pinhead, lamer, lamebrain, peabrain, birdbrain, mouth-breather, scissorbill, jerk, nerd, donkey, nitwit, twit, boob, twerp, hoser, schmuck, bozo, turkey, chowderhead, dingbat, mook;
Click to expand...


A beautiful Selfie Sniffer, it show how ugly you are, but then: I love punching you in the nose, even when I miss, I always come close.


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Hairsplitting Batman!!!
> 
> Arabs. Muslims. Brown skinned carpet kissers. Whatever. They're all one and the same.
> 
> *So, you give your land back to the indians yet*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just love this logic...The way it works is through Demographics...Although America managed to decimate the Native peoples, their cousins from South America are slowly getting it back.
> 
> For example Texas recently became a Hispanic majority State...Demographers project Hispanics to be a majority in the USA within 50 years.
> 
> Yes the Indians are getting it back. Press one for Spanish...
> 
> Israel should learn that Demographics do their silent work at a steady pace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big difference, Jarhead, is the Hispanics haven't threatened to run the Texicans into the sea or make a charter to murder all non-Hispanics in Texas. In fact, we Texans get along with the Hispanics pretty well. I know there is a heap of inter-marriages so you can toss out that part of your "demographics".
Click to expand...


No need to worry about dose Hispanics doggy boy, America is inclusive, Even do, dey Injunions we let them vote and become citizens and don't discriminate like Yisrael.

Got it?


----------



## dblack

I will not bowl!


----------



## pbel

PS doggy, Intermarriage is a big part of demographics.


----------



## Kondor3

dblack said:


> I will not bowl!


Far better to run, or swim, or hit the gym...


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well princess here are some Palestinian Haplotypes for you.
> 
> 
> Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. *A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome *pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have something not only more interesting than that but far more relevant to your post than yours is to mine:
> 
> *id·i·ot*
> noun: idiot;
> 1. a stupid person.
> synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More
> informaldope, ninny, nincompoop, chump, dimwit, dumbo, dummy, dum-dum, loon, dork, sap, jackass, blockhead, jughead, bonehead, knucklehead, fathead, butthead, numbskull, numbnuts, dumb-ass, doofus, clod, dunderhead, ditz, lummox, knuckle-dragger, dipstick, thickhead, meathead, meatball, wooden-head, airhead, pinhead, lamer, lamebrain, peabrain, birdbrain, mouth-breather, scissorbill, jerk, nerd, donkey, nitwit, twit, boob, twerp, hoser, schmuck, bozo, turkey, chowderhead, dingbat, mook;
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A beautiful Selfie Sniffer, it show how ugly you are, but then: I love punching you in the nose, even when I miss, I always come close.
Click to expand...


Pathetic, really pathetic, Pbel, that you are repeating the exact same nonsense that you had also repeated ad nauseam years ago.  You really look very childish with this nonsense.  If you dislike Sayit because he disagrees with your views, surely you can come up with something new than the same old, same old.  Maybe people in your real life have punched you in the head too many times.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have something not only more interesting than that but far more relevant to your post than yours is to mine:
> 
> *id·i·ot*
> noun: idiot;
> 1. a stupid person.
> synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More
> informaldope, ninny, nincompoop, chump, dimwit, dumbo, dummy, dum-dum, loon, dork, sap, jackass, blockhead, jughead, bonehead, knucklehead, fathead, butthead, numbskull, numbnuts, dumb-ass, doofus, clod, dunderhead, ditz, lummox, knuckle-dragger, dipstick, thickhead, meathead, meatball, wooden-head, airhead, pinhead, lamer, lamebrain, peabrain, birdbrain, mouth-breather, scissorbill, jerk, nerd, donkey, nitwit, twit, boob, twerp, hoser, schmuck, bozo, turkey, chowderhead, dingbat, mook;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A beautiful Selfie Sniffer, it show how ugly you are, but then: I love punching you in the nose, even when I miss, I always come close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic, really pathetic, Pbel, that you are repeating the exact same nonsense that you had also repeated ad nauseam years ago.  You really look very childish with this nonsense.  If you dislike Sayit because he disagrees with your views, surely you can come up with something new than the same old, same old.  Maybe people in your real life have punched you in the head too many times.
Click to expand...


Quite the contrary, there are tons of posters on this board that I like and respect. Sniff is machine-like, stiff hateful and manipulates the Zionist choir with its pretense of knowledge.

Pity. Maybe you're right. Sniffer sounds cuddly...Do you have any suggestions? Or anyone?


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> A beautiful Selfie Sniffer, it show how ugly you are, but then: I love punching you in the nose, even when I miss, I always come close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic, really pathetic, Pbel, that you are repeating the exact same nonsense that you had also repeated ad nauseam years ago.  You really look very childish with this nonsense.  If you dislike Sayit because he disagrees with your views, surely you can come up with something new than the same old, same old.  Maybe people in your real life have punched you in the head too many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary, there are tons of posters on this board that I like and respect. Sniff is machine-like, stiff hateful and manipulates the Zionist choir with its pretense of knowledge.
> 
> Pity. Maybe you're right. Sniffer sounds cuddly...Do you have any suggestions? Or anyone?
Click to expand...


I would suggest that you give up all the silly stuff that you have posted so many times for years.  I am grateful that we don't have that young female Jewish police officer posting or you would go into your donut shop routine ad nauseam when she disagreed with you.  By the way, I am willing to bet that Sayit is much more intelligent and successful in real life than you are.  You may disagree with me, but that is the way I feel.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic, really pathetic, Pbel, that you are repeating the exact same nonsense that you had also repeated ad nauseam years ago.  You really look very childish with this nonsense.  If you dislike Sayit because he disagrees with your views, surely you can come up with something new than the same old, same old.  Maybe people in your real life have punched you in the head too many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary, there are tons of posters on this board that I like and respect. Sniff is machine-like, stiff hateful and manipulates the Zionist choir with its pretense of knowledge.
> 
> Pity. Maybe you're right. Sniffer sounds cuddly...Do you have any suggestions? Or anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you give up all the silly stuff that you have posted so many times for years.  I am grateful that we don't have that young female Jewish police officer posting or you would go into your donut shop routine ad nauseam when she disagreed with you.  By the way, I am willing to bet that Sayit is much more intelligent and successful in real life than you are.  You may disagree with me, but that is the way I feel.
Click to expand...


It all depends on what you think success is, if its money he might win, if its chess, it doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

I think you must have misread something I wrote.

From YOUR source:  



> Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.  While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.





			
				United Nations Background Note:  The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity said:
			
		

> Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativism to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of human rights which could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. In other words, according to this view, human rights are culturally relative rather than universal.
> 
> Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights that has been painstakingly contructed over the decades. If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy.
> 
> Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ UN Human Rights Commission





montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial."
> 
> Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Secondly, What do think of the Irish?  Though often starving, they fought as terrorists or freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) losing every war against the Protestant settlers for centuries.  The British referred to the Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC) in much the same way you refer to the HoAP.  I just found a few anti-Irish quotes from long ago and recnt:
> 
> "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels". "
> 
> "Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued. ."
> 
> And quite recently:
> 
> In 2002, English journalist Julie Burchill wrote a column in The Guardian where she described Ireland as being synonymous with "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women."
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Anti-Irish sentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Point is, today those quotes are recognized as racist by almost anyone except maybe an Ulsterman.  What you are writing about the non-Jews of Palestine is equally racist.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, I was not citing Arab discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, but pointing out that there are cultural differences.  This is a fact, not an accusation.  And nothing in the Posting #3721 that remotely suggests that some human right of the HoAP (Hostile Arab Palestinian) should be denied simply because of some racial or ethnic difference.  By the same token nothing is racist about pointing out cultural differences.  If the Palestinian self-describes themselves as Jihadist or Fedayeen, then they are by definition --- Hostile.  If the Palestinian Palestinian self-describes themselves as a people dedicated to Jihad and armed struggle, then they are by definition --- Hostile.  If the Palestinian have a culture that openly organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating offensive  acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens, then they are by definition --- Hostile.  If the Palestinian have a culture that openly trains and encourages their children to recognize another culture as a enemy aggressor, and participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating offensive acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens, then they are by definition --- Hostile.

There is nothing racist about recognizing the cultural diversity, the differences that are open, documented and readily recognizable.  These are differences that the HoAP openly parade in public demonstrations.  They openly espouse these concepts of Jihad and armed struggle in a multitude of colorful ways; as well as action and deed.  There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing out something that they (the HoAP, including yourself) promote everyday.  (Hamas, Islamic Jihad call for a third intifada By KHALED ABU TOAMEH 09/26/2013 22:43 OR Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel&#8217;s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide &#8212; And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. ByPamela Geller on July 19, 2013)  

Second, I searched my Posting several times.  I see no reference to the "Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC)."  I don't think I expressed an opinion on the matter in this thread.  I'm not sure that I agree with your connection or association to the conditions that set the political or paramilitary situations alike.  In fact I see a great dissimilarity.  But we will have to defer that for another time in another thread venue more applicable.

Finally, I did not address the "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women" in any way.  If you are referring to the Arab Women that went nude in the quad of the Louvre Museum (Paris) early last month for International Women's day, against the oppression of women in the Arab world; I don't believe I made comment.  I don't believe I made comment on issue of "Nazi-sympathising."  I did mention that the issue of Jihadist training of children.  It is what it is; but definitely not "racist;" merely the reality.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I think you must have misread something I wrote.
> 
> From YOUR source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.  While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Background Note:  The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativism to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of human rights which could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. In other words, according to this view, human rights are culturally relative rather than universal.
> 
> Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights that has been painstakingly contructed over the decades. If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy.
> 
> Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ UN Human Rights Commission
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial."
> 
> Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Secondly, What do think of the Irish?  Though often starving, they fought as terrorists or freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) losing every war against the Protestant settlers for centuries.  The British referred to the Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC) in much the same way you refer to the HoAP.  I just found a few anti-Irish quotes from long ago and recnt:
> 
> "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels". "
> 
> "Great force must be the instrument but famine must be the means, for till Ireland be famished it cannot be subdued. ."
> 
> And quite recently:
> 
> In 2002, English journalist Julie Burchill wrote a column in The Guardian where she described Ireland as being synonymous with "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women."
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Anti-Irish sentiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Point is, today those quotes are recognized as racist by almost anyone except maybe an Ulsterman.  What you are writing about the non-Jews of Palestine is equally racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I was not citing Arab discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, but pointing out that there are cultural differences.  This is a fact, not an accusation.  And nothing in the Posting #3721 that remotely suggests that some human right of the HoAP (Hostile Arab Palestinian) should be denied simply because of some racial or ethnic difference.  By the same token nothing is racist about pointing out cultural differences.  If the Palestinian self-describes themselves as Jihadist or Fedayeen, then they are by definition --- Hostile.  If the Palestinian Palestinian self-describes themselves as a people dedicated to Jihad and armed struggle, then they are by definition --- Hostile.  If the Palestinian have a culture that openly organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating offensive  acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens, then they are by definition --- Hostile.  If the Palestinian have a culture that openly trains and encourages their children to recognize another culture as a enemy aggressor, and participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating offensive acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens, then they are by definition --- Hostile.
> 
> There is nothing racist about recognizing the cultural diversity, the differences that are open, documented and readily recognizable.  These are differences that the HoAP openly parade in public demonstrations.  They openly espouse these concepts of Jihad and armed struggle in a multitude of colorful ways; as well as action and deed.  There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing out something that they (the HoAP, including yourself) promote everyday.  (Hamas, Islamic Jihad call for a third intifada By KHALED ABU TOAMEH 09/26/2013 22:43 OR Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. ByPamela Geller on July 19, 2013)
> 
> Second, I searched my Posting several times.  I see no reference to the "Hostile Irish Catholics (HoIC)."  I don't think I expressed an opinion on the matter in this thread.  I'm not sure that I agree with your connection or association to the conditions that set the political or paramilitary situations alike.  In fact I see a great dissimilarity.  But we will have to defer that for another time in another threat venue more applicable.
> 
> Finally, I did not address the "child molestation, Nazi-sympathising, and the oppression of women" in any way.  If you are referring to the Arab Women that went nude in the quad of the Louvre Museum (Paris) early last month for International Women's day, against the oppression of women in the Arab world; I don't believe I made commend.  I don't believe I made comment on issue of "Nazi-sympathising."  I did mention that the issue of Jihadist training of children.  It is what it is; but definitely not "racist;" merely the reality.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Honestly Rocco, can't you say it in a few words?...Geez.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Shows the scope and severity of the problem doesn't it, and proves that islam is dangerous even in small doses.


All it shows, is where you get your _*"nut-o-phrania" *_from.


----------



## pbel

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shows the scope and severity of the problem doesn't it, and proves that islam is dangerous even in small doses.
> 
> 
> 
> All it shows, is where you get your _*"nut-o-phrania" *_from.
Click to expand...


Swimming in the polluted Thames under the Thieving Pirate Parliament. He promised to produce papers of sanity, certified!


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Hey, when reading this: Substitute Rocco, Phoenall, especially Kondor the Konqueror and don't forge Sniffer and MJ...*
> *    Attila the Dunn**
> 
> There is a guy named Dunn
> Who writes posts like Attila the Hun
> He makes up his lies in his daily routine
> Sending every Palestinian to a nice Guillotine...
> 
> He professes peace at the point of a Gun
> He says give us our land that we stole fair and square
> He says let us kill every Palestinian under the Sun
> He says please don't deny us our fun let's be fair
> 
> For my name is Attila the Dunn!*
Click to expand...

Don't quit your day-job, Pee-Belle.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> That is exactly what you did...


You don't tell me what my point is, _*I TELL YOU!*_

_GOT IT!_




Phoenall said:


> ... rather than look at the content of the links, you could always try googling it yourself and see how many hits you get..............


I did look at the content and none of it justifies you broad-stroking an entire race of people, as some evil enemy that has to be stopped.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what you did...
> 
> 
> 
> Listen fuckhead, shut your god-damn, punk-ass mouth!
> 
> You don't tell me what my point is, _*I TELL YOU!*_
> 
> _GOT IT!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... rather than look at the content of the links, you could always try googling it yourself and see how many hits you get..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did look at the content and none of it justifies you broad-stroking an entire race of people, as some evil enemy that has to be stopped.
> 
> Now fuck off, bitch-boy!
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHA
And the tough guy drama queen comes out again.

Just reminding you Billo, you are posting from behind a computer screen


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> I've read the previous posting; several times now.  I fail to see how this is --- in any way --- accurate.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But, if you can point-out how I furthered a doctrine that a certain human race _(what are they)_ is superior to any or all others _(who did I say was superior to whom)_, I'll reconsider.
> 
> Do you have a particular counter-point?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, when reading this: Substitute Rocco, Phoenall, especially Kondor the Konqueror and don't forge Sniffer and MJ...*
> *    Attila the Dunn**
> 
> There is a guy named Dunn
> Who writes posts like Attila the Hun
> He makes up his lies in his daily routine
> Sending every Palestinian to a nice Guillotine...
> 
> He professes peace at the point of a Gun
> He says give us our land that we stole fair and square
> He says let us kill every Palestinian under the Sun
> He says please don't deny us our fun let's be fair
> 
> For my name is Attila the Dunn!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't quit your day-job, Pee-Belle.
Click to expand...


Should I make it Kondor the Konqueeror?


----------



## toastman

Pbel, what does you poem have to do with what Rocco said?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, when reading this: Substitute Rocco, Phoenall, especially Kondor the Konqueror and don't forge Sniffer and MJ...*
> *    Attila the Dunn**
> 
> There is a guy named Dunn
> Who writes posts like Attila the Hun
> He makes up his lies in his daily routine
> Sending every Palestinian to a nice Guillotine...
> 
> He professes peace at the point of a Gun
> He says give us our land that we stole fair and square
> He says let us kill every Palestinian under the Sun
> He says please don't deny us our fun let's be fair
> 
> For my name is Attila the Dunn!*
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quit your day-job, Pee-Belle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should I make it Kondor the Kon*queer*or?
Click to expand...

I'll defer to your superior knowledge on such subject matter, Queenie.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Pbel, what does you poem have to do with what Rocco said?



It's the attitude of Might makes Right.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, what does you poem have to do with what Rocco said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the attitude of Might makes Right.
Click to expand...

Why not?

It's a time-honored Muslim tradition.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, what does you poem have to do with what Rocco said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the attitude of Might makes Right.
Click to expand...


Ok but I have not ever seen that in Rocco's posts


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quit your day-job, Pee-Belle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I make it Kondor the Kon*queer*or?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll defer to your superior knowledge on such subject matter, Queenie.
Click to expand...


Are you seeing something or was that a misspelling Queerie?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I make it Kondor the Kon*queer*or?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defer to your superior knowledge on such subject matter, Queenie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seeing something or was that a misspelling Queerie?
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

This does nothing to advance the discussion re: the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

You want a piece of me, sweet-cheeks, take it to the Flame Zone, and I'll be happy to tear you a new one.

Meanwhile, try to do a better job of laying-off the ad hominem attacks and focusing upon the subject matter.

Not that you're much good at that to begin with...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel, what does you poem have to do with what Rocco said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the attitude of Might makes Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok but I have not ever seen that in Rocco's posts
Click to expand...


I like Rocco, a lot. I give him credit for informing us in detail, however he reads like a British Colonialist who reads out the rules and expects us to follow.

American Policies thus far have been in support of Western Power to control Middle East Oil, Israel was supposed to be our lackey but AIPAC in America has made us Israel's lackey.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defer to your superior knowledge on such subject matter, Queenie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seeing something or was that a misspelling Queerie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
> 
> This does nothing to advance the discussion re: the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
> 
> You want a piece of me, sweet-cheeks, take it to the Flame Zone, and I'll be happy to tear you a new one.
> 
> Meanwhile, try to do a better job of laying-off the ad hominem attacks and focusing upon the subject matter.
> 
> Not that you're much good at that to begin with...
Click to expand...


I get a weirdo like you coming back adding the post total and showing the audience that Kondor which is a large Vulture lives up to its name by Jingoists juvenile boasting and hails of Israeli Knoquests as though he was Caesar! "Kill the Palestinians, drive them out. losers blah blah blah.

Stop posting like your pushing Toy soldiers if you want to discuss the ME.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> HAHAHAHA
> And the tough guy drama queen comes out again.
> 
> Just reminding you Billo, you are posting from behind a computer screen


I've told you more than once where you could find me, if you wanted to say something to me face-to-face.

But you are right, I am posting from behind a computer screen.

How's things on your side?


----------



## toastman

Lol what a loser you are Billo. Keep on acting tough on the internet, if it makes you feel better


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Lol what a loser you are Billo. Keep on acting tough on the internet, if it makes you feel better


That's all on you, not me.

I'm not acting anything.

That is your perception.  Own it!


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seeing something or was that a misspelling Queerie?
> 
> 
> 
> What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
> 
> This does nothing to advance the discussion re: the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
> 
> You want a piece of me, sweet-cheeks, take it to the Flame Zone, and I'll be happy to tear you a new one.
> 
> Meanwhile, try to do a better job of laying-off the ad hominem attacks and focusing upon the subject matter.
> 
> Not that you're much good at that to begin with...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get a weirdo like you coming back adding the post total and showing the audience that Kondor which is a large Vulture lives up to its name by Jingoists juvenile boasting and hails of Israeli Knoquests as though he was Caesar! "Kill the Palestinians, drive them out. losers blah blah blah.
> 
> Stop posting like your pushing Toy soldiers if you want to discuss the ME.
Click to expand...

Come back when you're sober and coherent...


----------



## MHunterB

P F Tinmore said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....
> 
> I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.
> 
> Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not true!*
> 
> I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.
> 
> It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.
Click to expand...


How about a simple statement that what the AL governments colluded to do to their own citizens was criminal?

Oh, that's right - you've advocated the US Government do the same thing to myself and a few million *other* native-born citizens.   No wonder you refuse to speak up and call that behavior criminal....


----------



## MHunterB

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol what a loser you are Billo. Keep on acting tough on the internet, if it makes you feel better
> 
> 
> 
> That's all on you, not me.
> 
> I'm not acting anything.
> 
> That is your perception.  Own it!
Click to expand...


LMAO!  Ever the bully-boy, that's little Billo.....


----------



## MHunterB

"You are one disgusting racist, that's for sure. "

Tell me, Monte - were you looking in the mirror when you posted the above?  Or were you talking to Jose who doesn't know what an albino looks like - and doesn't know that Galileans were reputed to be redheads two thousand or so years ago?


----------



## RoccoR

pbel, _et al,_

I don't think I can.



pbel said:


> Honestly Rocco, can't you say it in a few words?...Geez.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure that sound-bite discussions on this subject are even possible.  I don't think there are very many issues (outside the realm of theology and science) more difficult to understand than the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and today's basic political situation and diplomacy --- in the attempt to resolve it in peaceful and amicable way.

With each sound-bite type interrogation and reply (interrogative and response) only leads to a widening in differences.

The objective is regional peace and security.  How we get there doesn't depend on how well we like the solutions, but the acceptance of those solutions (compromise for the greater good).



pbel said:


> "however he reads like a British Colonialist who reads out the rules and expects us to follow."


*(COMMENT)*

I might...  That is a matter of perception.  

The Arab Palestinian cannot consistently attempt to use International Laws, and the basic Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation against Israel ... and then be the aggressor --- unable to follow the basic rule of  Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States (A/RES/34/102).  There is no special international dispensation granted the Arab-Palestinian to adopt hostile action.



pbel said:


> American Policies thus far have been in support of Western Power to control Middle East Oil, Israel was supposed to be our lackey but AIPAC in America has made us Israel' lackey.


*(COMMENT)*

Of course there are US energy concerns.  But none of them have anything to do with Israel or the conflict in a limited scope.  The conflict was not about oil a century ago, it wasn't about oil a half-century ago, and it is not about oil now.  The Arab Higher Committee made it very plain.  

Now there are some internal Palestinian expanded issues; but that is Arab-Palestinian domestic in nature.  Today, the basic issues are:

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.

A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol what a loser you are Billo. Keep on acting tough on the internet, if it makes you feel better
> 
> 
> 
> That's all on you, not me.
> 
> I'm not acting anything.
> 
> That is your perception.  Own it!
Click to expand...


Riiiiight... Keep telling yourself that tough guy hahaha.

Ok, you had a hissy fit, is that better??


----------



## MrMax

Israel should attack Gaza and the WB until the arabs finally either surrender unconditionally and wave a white flag, or get wiped out. Either way works for me.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> Israel should attack Gaza and the WB until the arabs finally either surrender unconditionally and wave a white flag, or get wiped out. Either way works for me.



Mind if we address you as MadMax?


----------



## pbel

RoccoR said:


> pbel, _et al,_
> 
> I don't think I can.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly Rocco, can't you say it in a few words?...Geez.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure that sound-bite discussions on this subject are even possible.  I don't think there are very many issues (outside the realm of theology and science) more difficult to understand than the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and today's basic political situation and diplomacy --- in the attempt to resolve it in peaceful and amicable way.
> 
> With each sound-bite type interrogation and reply (interrogative and response) only leads to a widening in differences.
> 
> The objective is regional peace and security.  How we get there doesn't depend on how well we like the solutions, but the acceptance of those solutions (compromise for the greater good).
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> "however he reads like a British Colonialist who reads out the rules and expects us to follow."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I might...  That is a matter of perception.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot consistently attempt to use International Laws, and the basic Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation against Israel ... and then be the aggressor --- unable to follow the basic rule of  Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States (A/RES/34/102).  There is no special international dispensation granted the Arab-Palestinian to adopt hostile action.
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Policies thus far have been in support of Western Power to control Middle East Oil, Israel was supposed to be our lackey but AIPAC in America has made us Israel' lackey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of course there are US energy concerns.  But none of them have anything to do with Israel or the conflict in a limited scope.  The conflict was not about oil a century ago, it wasn't about oil a half-century ago, and it is not about oil now.  The Arab Higher Committee made it very plain.
> 
> Now there are some internal Palestinian expanded issues; but that is Arab-Palestinian domestic in nature.  Today, the basic issues are:
> 
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> 
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> 
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Simple, Concise, and Accurate...The UN next...USA will Abstain.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel should attack Gaza and the WB until the arabs finally either surrender unconditionally and wave a white flag, or get wiped out. Either way works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind if we address you as MadMax?
Click to expand...


That's how we got Japan to surrender. The problem here is that Israel won't finish the war off, when they for sure can. Why let the Arabs shoot rockets at you? If Mexico was doing that because they wanted Texas back, we'd crush them like refried beans.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel should attack Gaza and the WB until the arabs finally either surrender unconditionally and wave a white flag, or get wiped out. Either way works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind if we address you as MadMax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how we got Japan to surrender. The problem here is that Israel won't finish the war off, when they for sure can. Why let the Arabs shoot rockets at you? If Mexico was doing that because they wanted Texas back, we'd crush them like refried beans.
Click to expand...


The Mexicans did shoot back when we stole their land, and like the Middle East they are getting it all back without firing a shot through Demographics...

Time is on the Arab side...The UN does not recognize Israeli Annexations, not even America...

Go back to the 67 borders or lose in the end.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Riiiiight... Keep telling yourself that tough guy hahaha.
> 
> Ok, you had a hissy fit, is that better??


This isn't about me.  It's about you and what's-his-fucks' reaction to my posts.  I don't choose your reactions, you (and bitch-boy) do.  It's not my fault, you "choose" to think this is a "tough guy" issue, or *phoestman* thinking he can "choose" what my "intentions" are.  Those are your choices and your decisions.  

Why are you such a pussy, you can't take ownership over the things you say?

Why are you such a coward, that you feel threatened if you can't control a conversation?

Why do you (and your Israeli kiss-ass, butt-buddy's) live in such total fear, that you have to personally attack everyone who criticizes Israeli policy?

This is just like the topic in the OP.  I wouldn't "bow" to *phoestman's* take on my post and you think the problem is me!  It's the same thing as thinking anyone who doesn't kiss Israeli ass, is an anti-Semite.

And all your arrogant, conceited, tough-guy talk in the world, is not going to make anyone (who has a set of balls), "bow" to your bullshit.

Now, fuck off!


----------



## Billo_Really

pbel said:


> The UN does not recognize Israeli Annexations, not even America...


After almost 50 years, you would think they would've caught that clue?


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mind if we address you as MadMax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how we got Japan to surrender. The problem here is that Israel won't finish the war off, when they for sure can. Why let the Arabs shoot rockets at you? If Mexico was doing that because they wanted Texas back, we'd crush them like refried beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mexicans did shoot back when we stole their land, and like the Middle East they are getting it all back without firing a shot through Demographics...
> 
> Time is on the Arab side...The UN does not recognize Israeli Annexations, not even America...
> 
> Go back to the 67 borders or lose in the end.
Click to expand...


Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.

PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.
> 
> PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.


If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.

Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.
> 
> PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.
> 
> Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...


Right after we attack Russia for invading Ukraine. 

Japan attacked us directly, and The Nazis attacked our allies, which with had agreements with to defend.

Anyways, the Arabs don't seem to give a shit about Gaza and the WB, because I don't see ANY Arab country doing anything.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.

From your link:



> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,* to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, how is telling the truth about Palestinians sliming them??

I challenge you to refute ONE thing Rocco said, something you never do.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.
> 
> PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.
> 
> Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Forced by whom?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,* to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No one ever said that Palestinian Arabs had no rights. We just mention how they had no sovereignty . 
It's the Arab propagandists that like to yell a different story, like you.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Tinmore, how is telling the truth about Palestinians sliming them??
> 
> I challenge you to refute ONE thing Rocco said, something you never do.


Except to constantly demand: Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,* to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one ever said that Palestinian Arabs had no rights. We just mention how they had no sovereignty .
> It's the Arab propagandists that like to yell a different story, like you.
Click to expand...


Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.



> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> *(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;*
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:



The hell I did... I just deemed the subject so important that I chose to address it in a separate thread.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *MhunterB*
> Or were you talking to Jose who doesn't know what an albino looks like - and doesn't know that Galileans were reputed to be redheads two thousand or so years ago?



You must be referring to the Galileans from Rhode Island:

Galilee, Rhode Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because the ones from the Middle East looked like this:

Historically Accurate Depiction of Christ Versus The Traditional






This is the image of Christ presented by the History Channel after extensive research of 
Jesus' lineage and of Galilean Jews of that era.​


----------



## José

MhunterB:

Despite being europeans (racially), your national identity as an ashkenazi woman is real, is 100% legitimate, you are a distinct people, totally separated from the european gentile population.

Despite sharing the same genes you are a separate people due to:

*1 the way you pray

2 the way you dress

3 the way you eat

4 the way you speak*

and more important than all these cultural aspects:

5 *THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT YOURSELVES* (as a separate people).

I'm merely repeating all the things I said in an exhaustive manner when I wrote a thread about this subject specially for the jewish members of the board.

I try to be fair to the jewish people to the best of my abilities.

You'll never see me on this board denying the legitimacy of the national identity of modern jews like you, Lipush, toastman, ForeverYoung, Sally deny the legitimacy of the palestinian national identity at least once a day, and Roudy at least 50 times a day.

The problem is that my recognition of the legitimacy of your national identity is not enough for you...

You want people to accept a mithological jewish ancestry linking you (the modern jewish people) to the ancient jewish people (the semitic people who lived in the Middle East).

And this is insane, hunter... you're asking me to deny a reality that's in front of my eyes and this is where I have to draw the line and say no... 

If you force me to choose between pleasing european jews by accepting an insanity, a nuttery or displeasing them by telling the truth you probably know what I and any reasonable person will choose.

Answering Kondor's question:

Toastman, hunter, Lipush, FY, SAYIT are not clowns when they say the are not european gentiles but a distinct people because this is what they really are.

But they do become clowns when they try to push on others an imaginary ancestry that goes against the most basic empirical evidence.

I'm not "denigrating" the jewish people by saying this as SAYIT put it. If you don't want to be called a clown don't display clownish behavior.

This is exactly the way I treat the palestinian national identity.

The palestinian national identity is real, they are not "generic arabs", syrians, egyptians like Roudy regurgitates over and over and over.

They really are a distinct people within the arab macro-ethnicity.

But just like your people, hunter, many palestinians do not think this recognition is enough. They want people to accept a non-existent strong, direct genetic link between the arab people of Palestine and one of the ancient biblical peoples like the Philistines to strenghthen their claim as natives of the land.

This is when palestinians also become clowns, insisting on a mithological origin based on fables, fantasies. At this point, all the serious arguments about the formation of the palestinian national identity gave way to sheer madness, nuttery and mockery.

They are indeed the natives of the land by virtue of having lived there for hundreds of years together with the native jews.

They are natives unlike ashkenazis like Gurion due to the fact they lived there for hundreds of years but they're not the descendents of any ancient biblical people.

(Askhenazi) Jews and Palestinians are not clowns when they say they possess legitimate real national identities. But they do behave like clowns when they try to convince others of a mithological ancient ancestry that only exists on their minds.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said that Palestinian Arabs had no rights. We just mention how they had no sovereignty .
> It's the Arab propagandists that like to yell a different story, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> *(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;*
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.

Whoops!


----------



## toastman

José;8877794 said:
			
		

> MhunterB:
> 
> Despite being europeans (racially), your national identity as an ashkenazi woman is real, is 100% legitimate, you are a distinct people, totally separated from the european gentile population.
> 
> Despite sharing the same genes you are a separate people due to:
> 
> *1 the way you pray
> 
> 2 the way you dress
> 
> 3 the way you eat
> 
> 4 the way you speak*
> 
> and more important than all these cultural aspects:
> 
> 5 *THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT YOURSELVES* (as a separate people).
> 
> I'm merely repeating all the things I said in an exhaustive manner when I wrote a thread about this subject specially for the jewish members of the board.
> 
> I try to be fair to the jewish people to the best of my abilities.
> 
> You'll never see me on this board denying the legitimacy of the national identity of modern jews like you, Lipush, toastman, ForeverYoung, Sally deny the legitimacy of the palestinian national identity at least once a day, and Roudy at least 50 times a day.
> 
> The problem is that my recognition of the legitimacy of your national identity is not enough for you...
> 
> You want people to accept a mithological jewish ancestry linking you (the modern jewish people) to the ancient jewish people (the semitic people who lived in the Middle East).
> 
> And this is insane, hunter... you're asking me to deny a reality that's in front of my eyes and this is where I have to draw the line and say no...
> 
> If you force me to choose between pleasing european jews by accepting an insanity, a nuttery or displeasing them by telling the truth you probably know what I and any reasonable person will choose.
> 
> Answering Kondor's question:
> 
> Toastman, hunter, Lipush, FY, SAYIT are not clowns when they say the are not european gentiles but a distinct people because this is what they really are.
> 
> But they do become clowns when they try to push on others an imaginary ancestry that goes against the most basic empirical evidence.
> 
> I'm not "denigrating" the jewish people by saying this as SAYIT put it. If you don't want to be called a clown don't display clownish behavior.
> 
> This is exactly the way I treat the palestinian national identity.
> 
> The palestinian national identity is real, they are not "generic arabs", syrians, egyptians like Roudy regurgitates over and over and over.
> 
> They really are a distinct people within the arab macro-ethnicity.
> 
> But just like your people, hunter, many palestinians do not think this recognition is enough. They want people to accept a non-existent strong, direct genetic link between the arab people of Palestine and one of the ancient biblical peoples like the Philistines to strenghthen their claim as natives of the land.
> 
> This is when palestinians also become clowns, insisting on a mithological origin based on fables, fantasies. At this point, all the serious arguments about the formation of the palestinian national identity gave way to sheer madness, nuttery and mockery.
> 
> They are indeed the natives of the land by virtue of having lived there for hundreds of years together with the native jews.
> 
> They are natives unlike ashkenazis like Gurion due to the fact they lived there for hundreds of years but they're not the descendents of any ancient biblical people.
> 
> (Askhenazi) Jews and Palestinians are not clowns when they say they possess legitimate real national identities. But they do behave like clowns when they try to convince others of a mithological ancient ancestry that only exists on their minds.



Jose what are you trying to get at?


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> Have you the results of their DNA tests to back up your claim ?



This post is the epitome of zionist insanity....

The british zionist prefers to deny a reality that's in front of his eyes, that was rubbed in his face instead of abandoning a mythological origin "backed-up" by DNA "tests" making a big fuss out of residual genetic inheritance financed by the israeli government to serve a political agenda.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Kondor3*
> Clowns?
> 
> How are these people clowns?
> 
> I agree that they don't entirely conform to stereotypical Jewish appearances, but...
> 
> Do we know their ethnic origins?
> 
> Are they the descendants of non-Hebrew Jewish converts?
> 
> Are they the descendants of the original Hebrew Jewish tribes and Diaspora?
> 
> Are they hybrids, and a mixture of the two?
> 
> Considering the mobility of populations and their wide-ranging admixture over the centuries, I think I'd want to wait for DNA test results, actually.



Kondor, you (and the rest of the sane world) don't need any DNA test to know this guy is not an australian aborigine:




You don't need any DNA test to know this old man and his granddaughter are not Han chinese either:




Their phenotypes together with your common sense are more than enough for you to avoid this kind of gross mistakes. 

But you refuse to accept that this girl is of slavic germanic stock without a DNA test:




You don't allow her phenotype and your common sense to guide you to the right conclusion because of you agenda, Kondor, because you desperately need this girl to be of semitic extraction so you can use her genes to legitimize the state of Israel.

So just like Phoenall you decide to deny a reality that's in front of your eyes.

Sally does make a good point when she says there's no absolute, perfect link between phenotype and genotype a point that MhunterB has made in the past, too.

But let's not make too much of a good argument... Phenotype is a pretty good indication of someone's ancestry... When you see a blond, blue-eyed, pink skinned German its almost certain he's at least 90% caucasian.

It's interesting to note that the rare occasions people become sistematically "suspicious" of the phenotype-genotype relationship is exactly in situations such as this, when they are trying to validate a mithological ancestry.

In your daily lives I bet you, MhunterB and Sally are not nearly as sceptical of phenotypes as you are when you are here debating Israel.

So if someday you lose interest in legitimising the creation of the state of Israel I'm sure you'll have no problem calling that girl what your eyes tell you she really is: an european female.


----------



## José

Sally is also right when she says that I probably have some jewish ancestry by virtue of being hispanic  since jews settled in Spain and Portugal even before the diaspora of 70 AD and from then on there were more Jews in that part of the world than saguaros in the Sonoran desert.

But just like the Askhenazim from Eastern Europe it's a vestigial ancestry at best.

Askhenazi Jews, the founders of Israel, have either:

*1 No jewish ancestry at all being the descendants of converts

2 or a residual ancestry ranging from 0,1 to 1 or 2%.*

You are free to call us all "hybrids" due to that extremely dilluted jewish heritage. It's technically correct but it would be an extremely misleading use of the word.


----------



## toastman

Jose, you need to understand something very important. 
Israel belongs to the Jews. So it doesn't matter if half of them are semitic and the other half not. The non semitic Israeli jews do not need to justify the fact that they live in Israel, because their ancestors might be from Europe.
Israel is a Jewish State, not a Semitic Jewish state. 

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say


----------



## Sally

José;8877838 said:
			
		

> Sally is also right when she says that I probably have some jewish ancestry by virtue of being hispanic  since jews settled in Spain and Portugal even before the diaspora of 70 AD and from then on there were more Jews in that part of the world than saguaros in the Sonoran desert.
> 
> But just like the Askhenazim from Eastern Europe it's a vestigial ancestry at best.
> 
> Askhenazi Jews, the founders of Israel, have either:
> 
> *1 No jewish ancestry at all being the descendants of converts
> 
> 2 or a residual ancestry ranging from 0,1 to 1 or 2%.*
> 
> You are free to call us all "hybrids" due to that extremely dilluted jewish heritage. It's technically correct but it would be an extremely misleading use of the word.




Hmm, wonder if Jose can prove to us that the Jews went to Spain and Portugal before the Dispora.  This is the first I heard of it.  I was under the impression that there were always Jews living in the area, but that many of them left -- some to Espanola and some to Eastern Europe and Germany.  Perhaps Jose can show us some regular encyclopedia which states that these Jews left before 70 A.D.  

By the way, Jose seems to have no problems with the Arabs leaving the Saudi Peninsula way. way after 70 A.D. to invade the surrounding countries.  Does anyone think that Jose would bring up the fact that these Arabs were not in many of these Middle East countries until about 700 A.D. but somehow now run these countries?  I would think that a good Hispanic Catholic boy like Jose would have a problem with Catholics and other Christians in those countries being unable to practice their beliefs in peace.  Evidently this doesn't bother him at all, not even when so many of them are murdered.

Anyhow, Jose, check to see if your last name is one of the original Sephardic Jewish names, such as Perez, Gomez, Torres, Menendez,  etc.  An interesting name is Gutierrez.  The ierrez in that name means Israel.  A Mexican woman told me all this, and perhaps Jose will be curious enough to check it out.


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.
> 
> PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.
> 
> Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forced by whom?
Click to expand...

He must mean th UN. But they have no gonads.


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.
> 
> Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> Forced by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He must mean th UN. But they have no gonads.
Click to expand...

That, or he's gonna wanna haul the USS Missouri outta mothballs again...


----------



## Kondor3

Jose, if you go back and look at my original again, you'll see that I was conceding the reality of large-scale and wide-ranging genome admixture over the course of 2,000 years, and conceding that today's Jews are a mixture of (1) the original Hebrew strain and (2) the gene-markers of wide-ranging converts to Judaism and (3) other peoples - including blond-haired, blue-eyed types.

Oh, and, I have no need (_desperate or otherwise_) to 'legitimize' the Jews' presence in Israel with DNA tests, etc.

I'm sure that millions of European Jews who went to the Einzatzgruppen Pits and the Gas Chambers had little or no Hebrew tribal blood in their veins, either.

I'm an Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from the Chicago metro area and am not a stakeholder in the '_legitimacy-by-blood-inheritance_' game.

I'm merely an avid Israel supporter who has a workable layman's understanding of ethnic and racial and genotype admixture over the centuries, and the migrations and driftings of the core racial and ethnic groups of Man, without claiming any particular expertise on the subject.

And, when I refer to the Jewish homeland, I almost exclusively refer to it as the Jews' "ancestral _and spiritual_" homeland - with the 'spiritual' part conceding by implication that a large percentage of Jews in Israel have little or no genetic (ancestral) connection with the Hebrew tribes of antiquity.

Just so we're clear.

No... the sacrifices and audacity of the people who fought to carve a resurrected Israel out of Old Palestine and who maintain it with their determination and courage, are all the legitimacy that Israel needs in the eyes of many around the world.


----------



## aris2chat

José;8877781 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *MhunterB*
> Or were you talking to Jose who doesn't know what an albino looks like - and doesn't know that Galileans were reputed to be redheads two thousand or so years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be referring to the Galileans from Rhode Island:
> 
> Galilee, Rhode Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> because the ones from the Middle East looked like this:
> 
> Historically Accurate Depiction of Christ Versus The Traditional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the image of Christ presented by the History Channel after extensive research of
> Jesus' lineage and of Galilean Jews of that era.​
Click to expand...


Esau and the Phoenicians had red hair.  Indo-european mummies in China from 1800 BCE have red hair.  Hurrians, Terah's origin, are depicted with blond and red hair and light colored eyes.
Those south of the fertile crescent tended to be of darker complexion and hair color in ancient times.
Semitic language in the south has Ethiopian origin.  Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician and Ugarit are of northern origin.
"Semitic" is not of one origin across the region.


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forced by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> He must mean th UN. But they have no gonads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That, or he's gonna wanna haul the USS Missouri outta mothballs again...
Click to expand...

Billio is living in the past. These days the Navy uses Tomahawks.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> Jose, if you go back and look at my original again, you'll see that I was conceding the reality of large-scale and wide-ranging genome admixture over the course of 2,000 years, and conceding that today's Jews are a mixture of (1) the original Hebrew strain and (2) the gene-markers of wide-ranging converts to Judaism and (3) other peoples - including blond-haired, blue-eyed types.
> 
> Oh, and, I have no need (_desperate or otherwise_) to 'legitimize' the Jews' presence in Israel with DNA tests, etc.
> 
> I'm sure that millions of European Jews who went to the Einzatzgruppen Pits and the Gas Chambers had little or no Hebrew tribal blood in their veins, either.
> 
> I'm an Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from the Chicago metro area and am not a stakeholder in the '_legitimacy-by-blood-inheritance_' game.
> 
> I'm merely an avid Israel supporter who has a workable layman's understanding of ethnic and racial and genotype admixture over the centuries, and the migrations and driftings of the core racial and ethnic groups of Man, without claiming any particular expertise on the subject.
> 
> And, when I refer to the Jewish homeland, I almost exclusively refer to it as the Jews' "ancestral _and spiritual_" homeland - with the 'spiritual' part conceding by implication that a large percentage of Jews in Israel have little or no genetic (ancestral) connection with the Hebrew tribes of antiquity.
> 
> Just so we're clear.
> 
> No... the sacrifices and audacity of the people who fought to carve a resurrected Israel out of Old Palestine and who maintain it with their determination and courage, are all the legitimacy that Israel needs in the eyes of many around the world.



In the eyes of most Americans, not many people around the world who have not been conditioned by the media and education system to believe that Europeans had the right to evict most of the indigenous people, except the Palestinian Jews, because their "God" gave the land to them.  I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> "..._I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco._"


When you *DO*, and when your book has been around for 3,000 years, and when you've gotten a couple of billion living souls on the planet (_and scores of billions of departed souls spanning those centuries_) to believe what you wrote, and to represent the word and will of a broadly-accepted deity, then you, too, will have a ball-game.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said that Palestinian Arabs had no rights. We just mention how they had no sovereignty .
> It's the Arab propagandists that like to yell a different story, like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> *(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;*
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.
> 
> Whoops!
Click to expand...


Not true.

It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan. The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco._"
> 
> 
> 
> When you *DO*, and when your book has been around for 3,000 years, and when you've gotten a couple of billion living souls on the planet (_and scores of billions of departed souls spanning those centuries_) to believe what you wrote, and to represent the word and will of a broadly-accepted deity, then you, too, will have a ball-game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> And I am sure that the book is considered reliable by a few billion Buddhists and Hindus.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose, if you go back and look at my original again, you'll see that I was conceding the reality of large-scale and wide-ranging genome admixture over the course of 2,000 years, and conceding that today's Jews are a mixture of (1) the original Hebrew strain and (2) the gene-markers of wide-ranging converts to Judaism and (3) other peoples - including blond-haired, blue-eyed types.
> 
> Oh, and, I have no need (_desperate or otherwise_) to 'legitimize' the Jews' presence in Israel with DNA tests, etc.
> 
> I'm sure that millions of European Jews who went to the Einzatzgruppen Pits and the Gas Chambers had little or no Hebrew tribal blood in their veins, either.
> 
> I'm an Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from the Chicago metro area and am not a stakeholder in the '_legitimacy-by-blood-inheritance_' game.
> 
> I'm merely an avid Israel supporter who has a workable layman's understanding of ethnic and racial and genotype admixture over the centuries, and the migrations and driftings of the core racial and ethnic groups of Man, without claiming any particular expertise on the subject.
> 
> And, when I refer to the Jewish homeland, I almost exclusively refer to it as the Jews' "ancestral _and spiritual_" homeland - with the 'spiritual' part conceding by implication that a large percentage of Jews in Israel have little or no genetic (ancestral) connection with the Hebrew tribes of antiquity.
> 
> Just so we're clear.
> 
> No... the sacrifices and audacity of the people who fought to carve a resurrected Israel out of Old Palestine and who maintain it with their determination and courage, are all the legitimacy that Israel needs in the eyes of many around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of most Americans, not many people around the world who have not been conditioned by the media and education system to believe that Europeans had the right to evict most of the indigenous people, except the Palestinian Jews, because their "God" gave the land to them.  I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco.
Click to expand...


Gosh, I wonder how many Christians around the world actually know about the Muslims leaving the Saudi Peninsula and invading the surrounding countries where the original Christians resided.  What would they think if they knew that these Christians were forced to convert and many who refused were slaughtered?  Perhaps now some of them realize that the descendents of these original Christians who were lucky enough to escape this slaughter can't even practice their beliefs in peace.

I still am wondering about all these "indigenous" people when early visitors to the area said they saw very few Arabs, mainly Bedouin until they got to the larger cities and saw the Jews.  Perhaps in time to come as more Muslims flood into Europe for jobs that they can't get in their own countries (the same way the Arabs flooded into Israel for jobs), will these Muslims eventually claim that they are the "indigenous" people and the actual indigenous Europeans were the ones who stole their land.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.
> 
> Whoops!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Not true. It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan_...
Click to expand...


For once we agree.



> The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.


True.

It merely greatly reduced the amount of land over which they _could_ claim sovereignty.

And, of course, by now, 66 years later, that 'amount of land' has shrunken to the approximate size of a postage stamp - hardly worth it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.
> 
> Whoops!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Not true. It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For once we agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> *It merely greatly reduced the amount of land over which they could claim sovereignty.
> *
> And, of course, by now, 66 years later, that 'amount of land' has shrunken to the approximate size of a postage stamp - hardly worth it.
Click to expand...


Not really.



> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the *territorial integrity of a country* is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples



Territorial integrity is one of those rights that have been violated.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Not true. It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For once we agree.
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> *It merely greatly reduced the amount of land over which they could claim sovereignty.
> *
> And, of course, by now, 66 years later, that 'amount of land' has shrunken to the approximate size of a postage stamp - hardly worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the *territorial integrity of a country* is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is one of those rights that have been violated.
Click to expand...

Once ownership changes hands, it's all over, Tinny.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once we agree.
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> *It merely greatly reduced the amount of land over which they could claim sovereignty.
> *
> And, of course, by now, 66 years later, that 'amount of land' has shrunken to the approximate size of a postage stamp - hardly worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the *territorial integrity of a country* is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is one of those rights that have been violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once ownership changes hands, it's all over, Tinny.
Click to expand...


Ownership has never changed hands.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is one of those rights that have been violated.
> 
> 
> 
> Once ownership changes hands, it's all over, Tinny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
Click to expand...


And THAT is the Disconnect From Reality that has held your side back and kept them in shitholes for 66 years. Pointless. Tragic. Pathetic.


Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.
> 
> Whoops!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan. The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.
Click to expand...


It was a plan to partition territory into two states. A sovereign Jewish State and a sovereign Arab state. The Arab rejected the plan , therefore rejecting sovereignty, AT THAT TIME.
I never said they rejected sovereignty forever.


----------



## Sally

José;8877826 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Kondor3*
> Clowns?
> 
> How are these people clowns?
> 
> I agree that they don't entirely conform to stereotypical Jewish appearances, but...
> 
> Do we know their ethnic origins?
> 
> Are they the descendants of non-Hebrew Jewish converts?
> 
> Are they the descendants of the original Hebrew Jewish tribes and Diaspora?
> 
> Are they hybrids, and a mixture of the two?
> 
> Considering the mobility of populations and their wide-ranging admixture over the centuries, I think I'd want to wait for DNA test results, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor, you (and the rest of the sane world) don't need any DNA test to know this guy is not an australian aborigine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need any DNA test to know this old man and his granddaughter are not Han chinese either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their phenotypes together with your common sense are more than enough for you to avoid this kind of gross mistakes.
> 
> But you refuse to accept that this girl is of slavic germanic stock without a DNA test:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't allow her phenotype and your common sense to guide you to the right conclusion because of you agenda, Kondor, because you desperately need this girl to be of semitic extraction so you can use her genes to legitimize the state of Israel.
> 
> So just like Phoenall you decide to deny a reality that's in front of your eyes.
> 
> Sally does make a good point when she says there's no absolute, perfect link between phenotype and genotype a point that MhunterB has made in the past, too.
> 
> But let's not make too much of a good argument... Phenotype is a pretty good indication of someone's ancestry... When you see a blond, blue-eyed, pink skinned German its almost certain he's at least 90% caucasian.
> 
> It's interesting to note that the rare occasions people become sistematically "suspicious" of the phenotype-genotype relationship is exactly in situations such as this, when they are trying to validate a mithological ancestry.
> 
> In your daily lives I bet you, MhunterB and Sally are not nearly as sceptical of phenotypes as you are when you are here debating Israel.
> 
> So if someday you lose interest in legitimising the creation of the state of Israel I'm sure you'll have no problem calling that girl what your eyes tell you she really is: an european female.
Click to expand...


I don't know, Jose, but since we all came out of Africa and the further away a group moved, the lighter their skin became.  Why are you so obsessed with who is a Jew or not.  You should worry more about the thousands and thousands of people who are dead now as a result of the Muslims killing each other as well as their killing Christians.  Maybe it is more important for you to discuss who is a Jew than worry about people who are being murdered by your friends and who will never come back to life.  I doubt that the deceased people's relatives and friends are worrying about who is a Jew or not.  I find it amazing how there are people so obsessed over one tiny piece of land in the Middle East (only of course because the Jews happen to be involved there), but never look at the big picture of what is happening in the rest of the enormous land in the Middle East where the Jews are not even involved.  I would imagine that the term Dhimwit was coined for people like this.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Israel belongs to the Jews.


Just like the Aryan nation belonged to ___________ .

Well, you can fill in the blank.


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> Right after we attack Russia for invading Ukraine.
> 
> Japan attacked us directly, and The Nazis attacked our allies, which with had agreements with to defend.
> 
> Anyways, the Arabs don't seem to give a shit about Gaza and the WB, because I don't see ANY Arab country doing anything.


No arab country can.

Israel is the big dog in the ME and no other country has the ability to do anything about it.

That's why that _*"wipe Israel off the map" *_mantra is such a joke!

Just a big, fuckin' joke.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Forced by whom?


Make me President and I'll have the whole thing done in 90 days.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> He must mean th UN. But they have no gonads.


Unfortunately, you happen to be right.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> That, or he's gonna wanna haul the USS Missouri outta mothballs again...


I still like that idea.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel belongs to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the Aryan nation belonged to ___________ .
> 
> Well, you can fill in the blank.
Click to expand...


Considering you compared Jews being gassed to death in the Holocaust to the IDF using tear gas as a means of riot dispersal, it's not the least bit surprising that you came up with this pathetic comparison..


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after we attack Russia for invading Ukraine.
> 
> Japan attacked us directly, and The Nazis attacked our allies, which with had agreements with to defend.
> 
> Anyways, the Arabs don't seem to give a shit about Gaza and the WB, because I don't see ANY Arab country doing anything.
> 
> 
> 
> No arab country can.
> 
> Israel is the big dog in the ME and no other country has the ability to do anything about it.
> 
> That's why that _*"wipe Israel off the map" *_mantra is such a joke!
> 
> Just a big, fuckin' joke.
Click to expand...


Nuclear weapons can easily destroy a tiny country like Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.
> 
> Whoops!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan. The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a plan to partition territory into two states. A sovereign Jewish State and a sovereign Arab state. The Arab rejected the plan , therefore rejecting sovereignty, AT THAT TIME.
> I never said they rejected sovereignty forever.
Click to expand...


The partition plan had nothing to do with the right to sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once ownership changes hands, it's all over, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And THAT is the Disconnect From Reality that has held your side back and kept them in shitholes for 66 years. Pointless. Tragic. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...


The ownership has not changed hands. You are the one with a problem with reality.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Considering you compared Jews being gassed to death in the Holocaust to the IDF using tear gas as a means of riot dispersal, it's not the least bit surprising that you came up with this pathetic comparison..


Are you that big of a pussy, that you have to constantly lie about shit?

And what's pathetic about the comparison?

They wanted an Aryan Nation, you want a Jewish State.

What's the fuckin' difference?

You're both racist assholes, who think your shit don't stink.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the Disconnect From Reality that has held your side back and kept them in shitholes for 66 years. Pointless. Tragic. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ownership has not changed hands. You are the one with a problem with reality.
Click to expand...

Spare me the Automatic Gainsay, Tinny...

The Israelis are in possession of those lands...

And have been, for 66 years now...

They hold the pink-slip nowadays... not you...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the Disconnect From Reality that has held your side back and kept them in shitholes for 66 years. Pointless. Tragic. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ownership has not changed hands. You are the one with a problem with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare me the Automatic Gainsay, Tinny...
> 
> The Israelis are in possession of those lands...
> 
> And have been, for 66 years now...
> 
> They hold the pink-slip nowadays... not you...
Click to expand...


Old school.

Parking your ass on a piece of land with a gun no longer means that  it is yours.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.
> 
> PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.
> 
> Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...





 So you advocate that the USA should ignore International law and attack Israel wipe out the Jews and destroy their property. Then force the rest into death camps and fulfil the NAZI's final solution because you don't think that International law applies to the Jews.

 Now how about you detail these breaches of International law that you claim Israel is making and show what the breaches are in detail so we can destroy your words with actual International law from Judges that know more than you ever will about it.

 What a filthy ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING RACIST SCUMBAG YOU ARE. Do you have your white bed sheet hung up in the closet and your wooden crosses ready to burn,


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Israel has no current intelligent and articulate people suitable for debate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,* to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land. The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
 The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
 Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> So you advocate that the USA should ignore International law and attack Israel wipe out the Jews and destroy their property. Then force the rest into death camps and fulfil the NAZI's final solution because you don't think that International law applies to the Jews.
> 
> Now how about you detail these breaches of International law that you claim Israel is making and show what the breaches are in detail so we can destroy your words with actual International law from Judges that know more than you ever will about it.
> 
> What a filthy ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING RACIST SCUMBAG YOU ARE. Do you have your white bed sheet hung up in the closet and your wooden crosses ready to burn,


Driving the god-damn Israeli's back to Israel, has nothing to do with Judaism.

But you're doing everything you can to get people to think it does.


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico isn't ever getting shit back, neither are they even asking for anything back. The arabs should take their clue from Mexico, because Mexico prospered after having lost that war. So unless the arabs concede and surrender, their lot will never improve.
> 
> PS Nobody cares about what the UN thinks, just ask Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel won't voluntarily obey international law, then it should be forced to.
> 
> Just like we did with Japan and Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forced by whom?
Click to expand...





 Why by the fleet of flying pink elephants that billy boy sees every day. It is just ISLAMONAZI RACISM at its worst, so take no notice and he will go away.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said that Palestinian Arabs had no rights. We just mention how they had no sovereignty .
> It's the Arab propagandists that like to yell a different story, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> *(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;*
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 So when was their application of independence thrown out then, as I believe they became a SOVEREIGN nation in 1988.

 Caught out in another LIE


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> So when was their application of independence thrown out then, as I believe they became a SOVEREIGN nation in 1988.


Who gives a shit what you believe!




Phoenall said:


> Caught out in another LIE


What was the lie, fuckhead?


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land. The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
> The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme


Over 100 UN resolutions, say you're full of shit!

People like you, don't deserve a country.


----------



## Phoenall

José;8877794 said:
			
		

> MhunterB:
> 
> Despite being europeans (racially), your national identity as an ashkenazi woman is real, is 100% legitimate, you are a distinct people, totally separated from the european gentile population.
> 
> Despite sharing the same genes you are a separate people due to:
> 
> *1 the way you pray
> 
> 2 the way you dress
> 
> 3 the way you eat
> 
> 4 the way you speak*
> 
> and more important than all these cultural aspects:
> 
> 5 *THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT YOURSELVES* (as a separate people).
> 
> I'm merely repeating all the things I said in an exhaustive manner when I wrote a thread about this subject specially for the jewish members of the board.
> 
> I try to be fair to the jewish people to the best of my abilities.
> 
> You'll never see me on this board denying the legitimacy of the national identity of modern jews like you, Lipush, toastman, ForeverYoung, Sally deny the legitimacy of the palestinian national identity at least once a day, and Roudy at least 50 times a day.
> 
> The problem is that my recognition of the legitimacy of your national identity is not enough for you...
> 
> You want people to accept a mithological jewish ancestry linking you (the modern jewish people) to the ancient jewish people (the semitic people who lived in the Middle East).
> 
> And this is insane, hunter... you're asking me to deny a reality that's in front of my eyes and this is where I have to draw the line and say no...
> 
> If you force me to choose between pleasing european jews by accepting an insanity, a nuttery or displeasing them by telling the truth you probably know what I and any reasonable person will choose.
> 
> Answering Kondor's question:
> 
> Toastman, hunter, Lipush, FY, SAYIT are not clowns when they say the are not european gentiles but a distinct people because this is what they really are.
> 
> But they do become clowns when they try to push on others an imaginary ancestry that goes against the most basic empirical evidence.
> 
> I'm not "denigrating" the jewish people by saying this as SAYIT put it. If you don't want to be called a clown don't display clownish behavior.
> 
> This is exactly the way I treat the palestinian national identity.
> 
> The palestinian national identity is real, they are not "generic arabs", syrians, egyptians like Roudy regurgitates over and over and over.
> 
> They really are a distinct people within the arab macro-ethnicity.
> 
> But just like your people, hunter, many palestinians do not think this recognition is enough. They want people to accept a non-existent strong, direct genetic link between the arab people of Palestine and one of the ancient biblical peoples like the Philistines to strenghthen their claim as natives of the land.
> 
> This is when palestinians also become clowns, insisting on a mithological origin based on fables, fantasies. At this point, all the serious arguments about the formation of the palestinian national identity gave way to sheer madness, nuttery and mockery.
> 
> They are indeed the natives of the land by virtue of having lived there for hundreds of years together with the native jews.
> 
> They are natives unlike ashkenazis like Gurion due to the fact they lived there for hundreds of years but they're not the descendents of any ancient biblical people.
> 
> (Askhenazi) Jews and Palestinians are not clowns when they say they possess legitimate real national identities. But they do behave like clowns when they try to convince others of a mithological ancient ancestry that only exists on their minds.






 Only one problem the DNA shows that the vast majority are not Europeans racially, but Middle Eastern Jews with the same haplotype genetic marker as that found in Jews who had never left the Middle East. Only the Jews had this haplotype marker proving that the Ashkenazi Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews


----------



## Phoenall

José;8877811 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Phoenall*
> Have you the results of their DNA tests to back up your claim ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post is the epitome of zionist insanity....
> 
> The british zionist prefers to deny a reality that's in front of his eyes, that was rubbed in his face instead of abandoning a mythological origin "backed-up" by DNA "tests" making a big fuss out of residual genetic inheritance financed by the israeli government to serve a political agenda.
Click to expand...




 In other words you have realised you don't have a leg to stand on so resort to the only vestige you have left. That is to deflect and derail by making outlandish claims and repeating ISLAMONAZI blood libels amd LIES rather than answer the questions.

 The science of DNA can now determine in which village your ancestors came from 2000 years ago. This is why the Palestinians refuse to be tested as it will show they are recent migrants to the area.

 And yes I am a Zionist in that I believe that the Jewish people should have a homeland in their cultural and religious area with the right to defend that homeland from attack.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> In other words you have realised you don't have a leg to stand on so resort to the only vestige you have left. That is to deflect and derail by making outlandish claims and repeating ISLAMONAZI blood libels amd LIES rather than answer the questions.
> 
> The science of DNA can now determine in which village your ancestors came from 2000 years ago. This is why the Palestinians refuse to be tested as it will show they are recent migrants to the area.
> 
> And yes I am a Zionist in that I believe that the Jewish people should have a homeland in their cultural and religious area with the right to defend that homeland from attack.


What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Only one problem the DNA shows that the vast majority are not Europeans racially, but Middle Eastern Jews with the same haplotype genetic marker as that found in Jews who had never left the Middle East. Only the Jews had this haplotype marker proving that the Ashkenazi Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews


Many of todays Israeli's, have no lineage with historical Israel.


> _many of todays Israelis who emigrated from Europe after World War II have little or *no genealogical connection to the land.* According to...historical analysis, they are descendents of European converts, principally from the Kingdom of the Khazars in eastern Russia, who embraced Judaism in the Eighth Century, A.D.
> 
> The descendants of the Khazars then were driven from their native lands by invasion and conquest and  through this migration  *created the Jewish populations of Eastern Europe*_


The Palestinian's, on the otherhand, are the direct descendents of the Israelites.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have realised you don't have a leg to stand on so resort to the only vestige you have left. That is to deflect and derail by making outlandish claims and repeating ISLAMONAZI blood libels amd LIES rather than answer the questions.
> 
> The science of DNA can now determine in which village your ancestors came from 2000 years ago. This is why the Palestinians refuse to be tested as it will show they are recent migrants to the area.
> 
> And yes I am a Zionist in that I believe that the Jewish people should have a homeland in their cultural and religious area with the right to defend that homeland from attack.
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.
Click to expand...


So when are you giving your land back to the Indians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I don't think that was said at all.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 
> The big question is:  What would you debate?
> 
> Much of any Palestinian argument is based upon rights and protections that the Allied Powers fought for and extended to the Palestinian.  Not a single contribution was ever made by the Arab-Palestinian or its ancestral linage.
> 
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 - International Bill of Human Rights
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966)
> Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/RES/49/148 23 December 1994)
> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (General Assembly 61/295 13 September 2007)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, *in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,* to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land.* The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
> The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme
Click to expand...


Rights are not "given." They are inherent.

The Mandate did not have land.


----------



## RoccoR

Billo_Really, _et al,_ 

For several thousand posting, on different threads, we've talked about the "exclusivity" _(not admitting of Jews - the displacement of Arabs; cultural incompatibility: mutually exclusive plans of action "Jews 'v' Arabs)_ of the "homeland" _(it either being Israeli or Arab)_.  This bifurcation --- a black-or-white fallacy --- is a false dilemma that unreasonably restricts you to only two choices _(Israeli 'v' Arab)_. 

There is no reasonable position of "exclusivity" that can be claimed in the Middle East --- anywhere in the Middle East.  It all changes over time.



Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have realised you don't have a leg to stand on so resort to the only vestige you have left. That is to deflect and derail by making outlandish claims and repeating ISLAMONAZI blood libels amd LIES rather than answer the questions.
> 
> The science of DNA can now determine in which village your ancestors came from 2000 years ago. This is why the Palestinians refuse to be tested as it will show they are recent migrants to the area.
> 
> And yes I am a Zionist in that I believe that the Jewish people should have a homeland in their cultural and religious area with the right to defend that homeland from attack.
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is no exclusive homeland that can be attributed to any specific people in the Middle East.  Even the term "homeland" is --- in itself --- problematic.  Over the last three millennium, the people, the languages, the cultures, the governments, the borders, and even the land mass, have risen, fallen, changed, evolved, and mutated over time.  

Today, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, is a continuation of the changes that started well before the creation of the Rosetta Stone _[a Ptolemaic age stele from Memphis (196 BC) on behalf of King Ptolemy V]_.  The entire region was once controlled by the family of a Macedonian General (Ancient Greek); _(or as our friend PF Tinmore would say)_ foreigners, even before the Romans.  Even the Mongols made a number of invasions into Region.  The Arab bloodlines are entangled in all sorts of ways.   It all changes with time.  

The Sand Box, that is the Middle East, is constantly evolving.  The attempt by either side to use ancient claims IS almost totally irrelevant to the modern day issue.  Even going back a half a century _(early 1960's)_ is almost too far removed to be of any use.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

This is a "cherry-picked" concept of the "foreigners."



P F Tinmore said:


> Rights are not "given." They are inherent.
> 
> The Mandate did not have land.


*(COMMENT)*

In the Arab World, there are no "inherent rights."

And if the "The Mandate did not have land;" neither did the Palestinians.

Your position is that some sovereignty granted the Palestinians some authority to establish self-government over the land.

Who was that and when?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

José;8877826 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Kondor3*
> Clowns?
> 
> How are these people clowns?
> 
> I agree that they don't entirely conform to stereotypical Jewish appearances, but...
> 
> Do we know their ethnic origins?
> 
> Are they the descendants of non-Hebrew Jewish converts?
> 
> Are they the descendants of the original Hebrew Jewish tribes and Diaspora?
> 
> Are they hybrids, and a mixture of the two?
> 
> Considering the mobility of populations and their wide-ranging admixture over the centuries, I think I'd want to wait for DNA test results, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor, you (and the rest of the sane world) don't need any DNA test to know this guy is not an australian aborigine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need any DNA test to know this old man and his granddaughter are not Han chinese either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their phenotypes together with your common sense are more than enough for you to avoid this kind of gross mistakes.
> 
> But you refuse to accept that this girl is of slavic germanic stock without a DNA test:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't allow her phenotype and your common sense to guide you to the right conclusion because of you agenda, Kondor, because you desperately need this girl to be of semitic extraction so you can use her genes to legitimize the state of Israel.
> 
> So just like Phoenall you decide to deny a reality that's in front of your eyes.
> 
> Sally does make a good point when she says there's no absolute, perfect link between phenotype and genotype a point that MhunterB has made in the past, too.
> 
> But let's not make too much of a good argument... Phenotype is a pretty good indication of someone's ancestry... When you see a blond, blue-eyed, pink skinned German its almost certain he's at least 90% caucasian.
> 
> It's interesting to note that the rare occasions people become sistematically "suspicious" of the phenotype-genotype relationship is exactly in situations such as this, when they are trying to validate a mithological ancestry.
> 
> In your daily lives I bet you, MhunterB and Sally are not nearly as sceptical of phenotypes as you are when you are here debating Israel.
> 
> So if someday you lose interest in legitimising the creation of the state of Israel I'm sure you'll have no problem calling that girl what your eyes tell you she really is: an european female.
Click to expand...





 I take it you have seen the video of the blonde girl abusing the Israeli soldier, are you saying that she is not an arab Palestinian. Which would mean that all the non dark skinned black haired Palestinians are illegal invaders. Does it also mean all the Saudi arabs with very light skin are Europeans as well.

 What a complete and utter illiterate fool you are, skin and hair colour by themselves does not denote race. Unless you are a RABID RACIST and will use this against anyone claiming to be Jewish, which you are doing.


----------



## Phoenall

José;8877838 said:
			
		

> Sally is also right when she says that I probably have some jewish ancestry by virtue of being hispanic  since jews settled in Spain and Portugal even before the diaspora of 70 AD and from then on there were more Jews in that part of the world than saguaros in the Sonoran desert.
> 
> But just like the Askhenazim from Eastern Europe it's a vestigial ancestry at best.
> 
> Askhenazi Jews, the founders of Israel, have either:
> 
> *1 No jewish ancestry at all being the descendants of converts
> 
> 2 or a residual ancestry ranging from 0,1 to 1 or 2%.*
> 
> You are free to call us all "hybrids" due to that extremely dilluted jewish heritage. It's technically correct but it would be an extremely misleading use of the word.






 Wrong on all counts as the Ashkenazi's show the genetic haplotype that is only present in a matrilineal lineage that can be traced back to the time of Abraham. Very few of the Ashkenazi Jews are converts as Judaism does not accept converts as other religions do, it is a long drawn out procedure that has blocks at every stage. The most prevalent reason for the European look of Ashkenazi Jews is from rape of Jewish females by ANTISEMITIC JEW HATERS and NAZIS, makes you proud to be descended from rapists doesn't it. More likely to be 95 to 98 % ancestry due to very little marriage outside of their own community for ANTISEMITIC and RELIGOUS reasons.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> Jose, you need to understand something very important.
> Israel belongs to the Jews. So it doesn't matter if half of them are semitic and the other half not. The non semitic Israeli jews do not need to justify the fact that they live in Israel, because their ancestors might be from Europe.
> Israel is a Jewish State, not a Semitic Jewish state.
> 
> I hope you understand what I'm trying to say






 The biggest and most compelling reason is that the Jews themselves can invite who they want to come and live in Israel it does not have anything to do with me, you or the cats mother.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> José;8877826 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *Kondor3*
> Clowns?
> 
> How are these people clowns?
> 
> I agree that they don't entirely conform to stereotypical Jewish appearances, but...
> 
> Do we know their ethnic origins?
> 
> Are they the descendants of non-Hebrew Jewish converts?
> 
> Are they the descendants of the original Hebrew Jewish tribes and Diaspora?
> 
> Are they hybrids, and a mixture of the two?
> 
> Considering the mobility of populations and their wide-ranging admixture over the centuries, I think I'd want to wait for DNA test results, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor, you (and the rest of the sane world) don't need any DNA test to know this guy is not an australian aborigine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need any DNA test to know this old man and his granddaughter are not Han chinese either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their phenotypes together with your common sense are more than enough for you to avoid this kind of gross mistakes.
> 
> But you refuse to accept that this girl is of slavic germanic stock without a DNA test:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't allow her phenotype and your common sense to guide you to the right conclusion because of you agenda, Kondor, because you desperately need this girl to be of semitic extraction so you can use her genes to legitimize the state of Israel.
> 
> So just like Phoenall you decide to deny a reality that's in front of your eyes.
> 
> Sally does make a good point when she says there's no absolute, perfect link between phenotype and genotype a point that MhunterB has made in the past, too.
> 
> But let's not make too much of a good argument... Phenotype is a pretty good indication of someone's ancestry... When you see a blond, blue-eyed, pink skinned German its almost certain he's at least 90% caucasian.
> 
> It's interesting to note that the rare occasions people become sistematically "suspicious" of the phenotype-genotype relationship is exactly in situations such as this, when they are trying to validate a mithological ancestry.
> 
> In your daily lives I bet you, MhunterB and Sally are not nearly as sceptical of phenotypes as you are when you are here debating Israel.
> 
> So if someday you lose interest in legitimising the creation of the state of Israel I'm sure you'll have no problem calling that girl what your eyes tell you she really is: an european female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you have seen the video of the blonde girl abusing the Israeli soldier, are you saying that she is not an arab Palestinian. Which would mean that all the non dark skinned black haired Palestinians are illegal invaders. Does it also mean all the Saudi arabs with very light skin are Europeans as well.
> 
> What a complete and utter illiterate fool you are, skin and hair colour by themselves does not denote race. Unless you are a RABID RACIST and will use this against anyone claiming to be Jewish, which you are doing.
Click to expand...


When you think about skin color or genetics, think the Roman Empire whose Legions consisted of soldiers from all over the Empire...At its fall, 2/3 of the Roman Army were German mercenaries, light skinned and many red heads.

But there is no doubt that the Palestinian genetic pool proven by science is clearly more related to the original Jews and Christian than the European Jews of the diaspora living in Israel today.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose, if you go back and look at my original again, you'll see that I was conceding the reality of large-scale and wide-ranging genome admixture over the course of 2,000 years, and conceding that today's Jews are a mixture of (1) the original Hebrew strain and (2) the gene-markers of wide-ranging converts to Judaism and (3) other peoples - including blond-haired, blue-eyed types.
> 
> Oh, and, I have no need (_desperate or otherwise_) to 'legitimize' the Jews' presence in Israel with DNA tests, etc.
> 
> I'm sure that millions of European Jews who went to the Einzatzgruppen Pits and the Gas Chambers had little or no Hebrew tribal blood in their veins, either.
> 
> I'm an Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from the Chicago metro area and am not a stakeholder in the '_legitimacy-by-blood-inheritance_' game.
> 
> I'm merely an avid Israel supporter who has a workable layman's understanding of ethnic and racial and genotype admixture over the centuries, and the migrations and driftings of the core racial and ethnic groups of Man, without claiming any particular expertise on the subject.
> 
> And, when I refer to the Jewish homeland, I almost exclusively refer to it as the Jews' "ancestral _and spiritual_" homeland - with the 'spiritual' part conceding by implication that a large percentage of Jews in Israel have little or no genetic (ancestral) connection with the Hebrew tribes of antiquity.
> 
> Just so we're clear.
> 
> No... the sacrifices and audacity of the people who fought to carve a resurrected Israel out of Old Palestine and who maintain it with their determination and courage, are all the legitimacy that Israel needs in the eyes of many around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of most Americans, not many people around the world who have not been conditioned by the media and education system to believe that Europeans had the right to evict most of the indigenous people, except the Palestinian Jews, because their "God" gave the land to them.  I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco.
Click to expand...





Yet you defend and support the eviction of non muslims from all of the M.E. nations because their God gave the land to them. So what is the difference between 300 million muslims violently evicting all non muslims from their homes and property and 1 million Jews declaring independence on land given to them by its rightful and legal owners in 1948.

 Don't forget that little fact that the arab muslims had never owned the land for over 1,000 years and were subservient to the real owners right up until 1949.


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose, if you go back and look at my original again, you'll see that I was conceding the reality of large-scale and wide-ranging genome admixture over the course of 2,000 years, and conceding that today's Jews are a mixture of (1) the original Hebrew strain and (2) the gene-markers of wide-ranging converts to Judaism and (3) other peoples - including blond-haired, blue-eyed types.
> 
> Oh, and, I have no need (_desperate or otherwise_) to 'legitimize' the Jews' presence in Israel with DNA tests, etc.
> 
> I'm sure that millions of European Jews who went to the Einzatzgruppen Pits and the Gas Chambers had little or no Hebrew tribal blood in their veins, either.
> 
> I'm an Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from the Chicago metro area and am not a stakeholder in the '_legitimacy-by-blood-inheritance_' game.
> 
> I'm merely an avid Israel supporter who has a workable layman's understanding of ethnic and racial and genotype admixture over the centuries, and the migrations and driftings of the core racial and ethnic groups of Man, without claiming any particular expertise on the subject.
> 
> And, when I refer to the Jewish homeland, I almost exclusively refer to it as the Jews' "ancestral _and spiritual_" homeland - with the 'spiritual' part conceding by implication that a large percentage of Jews in Israel have little or no genetic (ancestral) connection with the Hebrew tribes of antiquity.
> 
> Just so we're clear.
> 
> No... the sacrifices and audacity of the people who fought to carve a resurrected Israel out of Old Palestine and who maintain it with their determination and courage, are all the legitimacy that Israel needs in the eyes of many around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of most Americans, not many people around the world who have not been conditioned by the media and education system to believe that Europeans had the right to evict most of the indigenous people, except the Palestinian Jews, because their "God" gave the land to them.  I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you defend and support the eviction of non muslims from all of the M.E. nations because their God gave the land to them. So what is the difference between 300 million muslims violently evicting all non muslims from their homes and property and 1 million Jews declaring independence on land given to them by its rightful and legal owners in 1948.
> 
> Don't forget that little fact that the arab muslims had never owned the land for over 1,000 years and were subservient to the real owners right up until 1949.
Click to expand...

Some good points, there.

It's OK, when the Muslims play those games in 95% of the land-mass of the region...

But it's not OK, when the Jews play those games in 5% of the land-mass of the region...

Pfffffttttt....

The hypocrisy is just friggin' unbelievable...

The workaround for that is to ignore the 95-pecenters bitching about the 5-percenters...

Or slap their ears back when they try to spin-doctor their hypocritical Israel-bashing...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another false premise. It is the* right* to sovereignty that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They rejected sovereignty when they said NO to the partition plan.
> 
> Whoops!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan. The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.
Click to expand...





 Which they themselves gave up in 1948 when they voted for Jordan to rule them. That gave Jordan sovereignty over the Palestinians of the west bank, the Palestinians of gaza were just placed in prison camps and mistreated by the Egyptians. So the partinon plan would have given them sovereignty over their own lands but they turned it down in favour of outside influence and sovereignty.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco._"
> 
> 
> 
> When you *DO*, and when your book has been around for 3,000 years, and when you've gotten a couple of billion living souls on the planet (_and scores of billions of departed souls spanning those centuries_) to believe what you wrote, and to represent the word and will of a broadly-accepted deity, then you, too, will have a ball-game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> And I am sure that the book is considered reliable by a few billion Buddhists and Hindus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget to claim that you are the last prophet and all the others are false prophets. Then allow child sex, rape, murder, violence and anything else that is abhorrent to civilised people. That way you will be sure to get a million followers within 2 years.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose, if you go back and look at my original again, you'll see that I was conceding the reality of large-scale and wide-ranging genome admixture over the course of 2,000 years, and conceding that today's Jews are a mixture of (1) the original Hebrew strain and (2) the gene-markers of wide-ranging converts to Judaism and (3) other peoples - including blond-haired, blue-eyed types.
> 
> Oh, and, I have no need (_desperate or otherwise_) to 'legitimize' the Jews' presence in Israel with DNA tests, etc.
> 
> I'm sure that millions of European Jews who went to the Einzatzgruppen Pits and the Gas Chambers had little or no Hebrew tribal blood in their veins, either.
> 
> I'm an Irish-German lapsed Roman Catholic boy from the Chicago metro area and am not a stakeholder in the '_legitimacy-by-blood-inheritance_' game.
> 
> I'm merely an avid Israel supporter who has a workable layman's understanding of ethnic and racial and genotype admixture over the centuries, and the migrations and driftings of the core racial and ethnic groups of Man, without claiming any particular expertise on the subject.
> 
> And, when I refer to the Jewish homeland, I almost exclusively refer to it as the Jews' "ancestral _and spiritual_" homeland - with the 'spiritual' part conceding by implication that a large percentage of Jews in Israel have little or no genetic (ancestral) connection with the Hebrew tribes of antiquity.
> 
> Just so we're clear.
> 
> No... the sacrifices and audacity of the people who fought to carve a resurrected Israel out of Old Palestine and who maintain it with their determination and courage, are all the legitimacy that Israel needs in the eyes of many around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of most Americans, not many people around the world who have not been conditioned by the media and education system to believe that Europeans had the right to evict most of the indigenous people, except the Palestinian Jews, because their "God" gave the land to them.  I could write a book that says God gave me Monaco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, I wonder how many Christians around the world actually know about the Muslims leaving the Saudi Peninsula and invading the surrounding countries where the original Christians resided.  What would they think if they knew that these Christians were forced to convert and many who refused were slaughtered?  Perhaps now some of them realize that the descendents of these original Christians who were lucky enough to escape this slaughter can't even practice their beliefs in peace.
> 
> I still am wondering about all these "indigenous" people when early visitors to the area said they saw very few Arabs, mainly Bedouin until they got to the larger cities and saw the Jews.  Perhaps in time to come as more Muslims flood into Europe for jobs that they can't get in their own countries (the same way the Arabs flooded into Israel for jobs), will these Muslims eventually claim that they are the "indigenous" people and the actual indigenous Europeans were the ones who stole their land.
Click to expand...





 They are already doing this in the UK through their proxies the neo Marxists. Some you might remember from POI and Deep Blue.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Not true. It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For once we agree.
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> *It merely greatly reduced the amount of land over which they could claim sovereignty.
> *
> And, of course, by now, 66 years later, that 'amount of land' has shrunken to the approximate size of a postage stamp - hardly worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the *territorial integrity of a country* is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is one of those rights that have been violated.
Click to expand...





 How so when they only achieved sovereignty and territorial integrity in 1988. Since this time they have lost no more land than that they signed away in a treaty.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is one of those rights that have been violated.
> 
> 
> 
> Once ownership changes hands, it's all over, Tinny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
Click to expand...





 The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel belongs to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the Aryan nation belonged to ___________ .
> 
> Well, you can fill in the blank.
Click to expand...





 There was never an Aryan nation, it was just a sub group of a race. Much like arab muslims are just Asians.

 BUT legally and ethically Israel does belong to the Jews of all races and creeds, it is entrenched in International Law. Making it the only nation that is part of International law.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after we attack Russia for invading Ukraine.
> 
> Japan attacked us directly, and The Nazis attacked our allies, which with had agreements with to defend.
> 
> Anyways, the Arabs don't seem to give a shit about Gaza and the WB, because I don't see ANY Arab country doing anything.
> 
> 
> 
> No arab country can.
> 
> Israel is the big dog in the ME and no other country has the ability to do anything about it.
> 
> That's why that _*"wipe Israel off the map" *_mantra is such a joke!
> 
> Just a big, fuckin' joke.
Click to expand...





 So the Pakistani nuclear weapons does not level the playing field. The chemical and biological weapons so many Islamic dictatorships seem to have don't show cause for concern. The demographics of the Islamic world that out number the Jews 200 to 1 don't matter. 
 The fact is the muslims do a lot of shouting and gesticulating but at the end of the day the Palestinians are not wanted or liked by the majority of muslims. They see them as the parasites they are and would turn a blind eye to the next major retaliation for their terrorist attacks on israel


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forced by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> Make me President and I'll have the whole thing done in 90 days.
Click to expand...





 The joint chiefs of staff would issue an obituary within 10 days of you taking office regretfully informing the world that you died as a result of a massive brain bleed that could not be treated.
 Or the rest of the world would park their armed forces on your front lawn and ask when you would be coming out to play.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, or he's gonna wanna haul the USS Missouri outta mothballs again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still like that idea.
Click to expand...




 Then find a crew of ISLAMONAZI JEW HATERS to man it, because not one of the American sailors would obey your commands. No planes would fly against Israel, no troops would march towards Israel and no civilian would support your extermination of the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan. The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a plan to partition territory into two states. A sovereign Jewish State and a sovereign Arab state. The Arab rejected the plan , therefore rejecting sovereignty, AT THAT TIME.
> I never said they rejected sovereignty forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The partition plan had nothing to do with the right to sovereignty.
Click to expand...






It did as it opened the door for the arab muslims to show they were ready for free determination and sovereignty. Their refusal to accept both of these shows they are not ready to play in the big boys league.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is the Disconnect From Reality that has held your side back and kept them in shitholes for 66 years. Pointless. Tragic. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my HP 7 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ownership has not changed hands. You are the one with a problem with reality.
Click to expand...






 Oslo Accords 2 says otherwise.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _ et al,_

*sover·eign·ty* [ sóvvr&#601;ntee ]

top authority: supreme authority, especially over a state
independence: the right to self-government without interference from outside
independent state: a politically independent state



P F Tinmore said:


> Not true.
> 
> It was a partition plan not a sovereignty plan. The plan did not change their right to sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

The General Assembly Resolution adopted [A/RES/181(II)] of 29 November 1947 (AKA: The Partition Plan) offered the opportunity.

It was used by:

The Jewish Agency to establish self-government and independence (AKA: sovereignty) in 1948.
The PLO to establish self-government and independence (AKA: sovereignty) in 1988.



			
				Forward:  Page iii said:
			
		

> Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), *providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State *in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem.
> 
> *SOURCE:*  UN Publication; The Question of Palestine and the United Nations NYNY 2008



Your attempt at a _Ad Hoc Rescue_ of a cherished belief, when faced with the real history, is admirable but entirely wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you compared Jews being gassed to death in the Holocaust to the IDF using tear gas as a means of riot dispersal, it's not the least bit surprising that you came up with this pathetic comparison..
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that big of a pussy, that you have to constantly lie about shit?
> 
> And what's pathetic about the comparison?
> 
> They wanted an Aryan Nation, you want a Jewish State.
> 
> What's the fuckin' difference?
> 
> You're both racist assholes, who think your shit don't stink.
Click to expand...





 Where is the LIE as you compared the gassing of Jews by your Nazi friends to the IDF using non lethal tear gas to disperse a crowd.  You even admitted that this was the case.

 It seems that you want to resurrect the Aryan race and all of its flaws as it leads to the genocide of the Jews. Who will you go for next the Hindus or the Sikhs ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ownership has not changed hands. You are the one with a problem with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the Automatic Gainsay, Tinny...
> 
> The Israelis are in possession of those lands...
> 
> And have been, for 66 years now...
> 
> They hold the pink-slip nowadays... not you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old school.
> 
> Parking your ass on a piece of land with a gun no longer means that  it is yours.
Click to expand...





 Tell that to the Palestinians because that is exactly how they think and act.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate that the USA should ignore International law and attack Israel wipe out the Jews and destroy their property. Then force the rest into death camps and fulfil the NAZI's final solution because you don't think that International law applies to the Jews.
> 
> Now how about you detail these breaches of International law that you claim Israel is making and show what the breaches are in detail so we can destroy your words with actual International law from Judges that know more than you ever will about it.
> 
> What a filthy ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING RACIST SCUMBAG YOU ARE. Do you have your white bed sheet hung up in the closet and your wooden crosses ready to burn,
> 
> 
> 
> Driving the god-damn Israeli's back to Israel, has nothing to do with Judaism.
> 
> But you're doing everything you can to get people to think it does.
Click to expand...





 Does not matter how you wrap it up you just want to wipe out the Jews and destroy Israel. Under International law the IDF is in the west bank legally, your proposed attack would be a breach of International Law making you the aggressor and WAR CRIMINAL. Your words have everything to do with your pathological hatred of the Jews and Judaism.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when was their application of independence thrown out then, as I believe they became a SOVEREIGN nation in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit what you believe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caught out in another LIE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was the lie, fuckhead?
Click to expand...





 You should for a start as you show your illiteracy in regards to International law everythime you post your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED SHIT

 That the Palestinians have no sovereignty when they declared in in 1988, and Israel did not oppose them.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land. The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
> The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme
> 
> 
> 
> Over 100 UN resolutions, say you're full of shit!
> 
> People like you, don't deserve a country.
Click to expand...





 Then produce these 100 UN resolutions that show that the Palestinians were refused the chance to form a nation and show free determination. That is the only factor that you are debating


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have realised you don't have a leg to stand on so resort to the only vestige you have left. That is to deflect and derail by making outlandish claims and repeating ISLAMONAZI blood libels amd LIES rather than answer the questions.
> 
> The science of DNA can now determine in which village your ancestors came from 2000 years ago. This is why the Palestinians refuse to be tested as it will show they are recent migrants to the area.
> 
> And yes I am a Zionist in that I believe that the Jewish people should have a homeland in their cultural and religious area with the right to defend that homeland from attack.
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.
Click to expand...





 Who's homeland has been taken away then ?

 Bear in mind that the land of Palestine was not a homeland to any group until 1948 .


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one problem the DNA shows that the vast majority are not Europeans racially, but Middle Eastern Jews with the same haplotype genetic marker as that found in Jews who had never left the Middle East. Only the Jews had this haplotype marker proving that the Ashkenazi Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews
> 
> 
> 
> Many of todays Israeli's, have no lineage with historical Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> _many of todays Israelis who emigrated from Europe after World War II have little or *no genealogical connection to the land.* According to...historical analysis, they are descendents of European converts, principally from the Kingdom of the Khazars in eastern Russia, who embraced Judaism in the Eighth Century, A.D.
> 
> The descendants of the Khazars then were driven from their native lands by invasion and conquest and  through this migration  *created the Jewish populations of Eastern Europe*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinian's, on the otherhand, are the direct descendents of the Israelites.
Click to expand...





 Your proof of this is what, the words of some ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST

 The Palestinians are recent migrants to the area as shown by the ottoman histories.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In disregard to your excess in verbosity and your sliming the Arabs/Palestinians, I will thank you for your link.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
> 
> We hear constantly from Israel's propagandists that the Palestinians have no rights because they have never had an independent country or state. There is also a list of other excuses why they don't have rights. Of course none of this is true and the arguments that follow are not true because they are based on false premise.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land.* The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
> The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are not "given." They are inherent.
> 
> The Mandate did not have land.
Click to expand...





 You can of course back up your claim with proof from an unbiased and corroborative source ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;8877826 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor, you (and the rest of the sane world) don't need any DNA test to know this guy is not an australian aborigine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need any DNA test to know this old man and his granddaughter are not Han chinese either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their phenotypes together with your common sense are more than enough for you to avoid this kind of gross mistakes.
> 
> But you refuse to accept that this girl is of slavic germanic stock without a DNA test:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't allow her phenotype and your common sense to guide you to the right conclusion because of you agenda, Kondor, because you desperately need this girl to be of semitic extraction so you can use her genes to legitimize the state of Israel.
> 
> So just like Phoenall you decide to deny a reality that's in front of your eyes.
> 
> Sally does make a good point when she says there's no absolute, perfect link between phenotype and genotype a point that MhunterB has made in the past, too.
> 
> But let's not make too much of a good argument... Phenotype is a pretty good indication of someone's ancestry... When you see a blond, blue-eyed, pink skinned German its almost certain he's at least 90% caucasian.
> 
> It's interesting to note that the rare occasions people become sistematically "suspicious" of the phenotype-genotype relationship is exactly in situations such as this, when they are trying to validate a mithological ancestry.
> 
> In your daily lives I bet you, MhunterB and Sally are not nearly as sceptical of phenotypes as you are when you are here debating Israel.
> 
> So if someday you lose interest in legitimising the creation of the state of Israel I'm sure you'll have no problem calling that girl what your eyes tell you she really is: an european female.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you have seen the video of the blonde girl abusing the Israeli soldier, are you saying that she is not an arab Palestinian. Which would mean that all the non dark skinned black haired Palestinians are illegal invaders. Does it also mean all the Saudi arabs with very light skin are Europeans as well.
> 
> What a complete and utter illiterate fool you are, skin and hair colour by themselves does not denote race. Unless you are a RABID RACIST and will use this against anyone claiming to be Jewish, which you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you think about skin color or genetics, think the Roman Empire whose Legions consisted of soldiers from all over the Empire...At its fall, 2/3 of the Roman Army were German mercenaries, light skinned and many red heads.
> 
> But there is no doubt that the Palestinian genetic pool proven by science is clearly more related to the original Jews and Christian than the European Jews of the diaspora living in Israel today.
Click to expand...





 More likely to be as a result of arab slave trade in blonde haired blue eyed females so they could lighten their features. Mix that with people from other parts of the M.E and north Africa/Asia and you get the modern Palestinian muslim. A mongrel that has no distinctive racial trait other than that of suffering from sickle cell anaemia due to a genetic defect. The Jews the world over show the characteristic haplotype DNA marker that was around 3,000 years ago and is believed to have originated with Abraham.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a plan to partition territory into two states. A sovereign Jewish State and a sovereign Arab state. The Arab rejected the plan , therefore rejecting sovereignty, AT THAT TIME.
> I never said they rejected sovereignty forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The partition plan had nothing to do with the right to sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did as it opened the door for the arab muslims to show they were ready for free determination and sovereignty. Their refusal to accept both of these shows they are not ready to play in the big boys league.
Click to expand...


3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. 

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the Automatic Gainsay, Tinny...
> 
> The Israelis are in possession of those lands...
> 
> And have been, for 66 years now...
> 
> They hold the pink-slip nowadays... not you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old school.
> 
> Parking your ass on a piece of land with a gun no longer means that  it is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Palestinians because that is exactly how they think and act.
Click to expand...


And backed up by international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have realised you don't have a leg to stand on so resort to the only vestige you have left. That is to deflect and derail by making outlandish claims and repeating ISLAMONAZI blood libels amd LIES rather than answer the questions.
> 
> The science of DNA can now determine in which village your ancestors came from 2000 years ago. This is why the Palestinians refuse to be tested as it will show they are recent migrants to the area.
> 
> And yes I am a Zionist in that I believe that the Jewish people should have a homeland in their cultural and religious area with the right to defend that homeland from attack.
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's homeland has been taken away then ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the land of Palestine was not a homeland to any group until 1948 .
Click to expand...


In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91

52With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
    (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

OK, where is your link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> * None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land.* The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
> The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are not "given." They are inherent.
> 
> The Mandate did not have land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course back up your claim with proof from an unbiased and corroborative source ?
Click to expand...


You are the one who claimed that rights were given and the mandate had the land.

You should back up your claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once ownership changes hands, it's all over, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza
Click to expand...


Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.


----------



## SAYIT

José;8877769 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell I did... I just deemed the subject so important that I chose to address it in a separate thread.
Click to expand...


You mean rather than address it you chose to slither away and then lie.
Typical anti-Israel scummy.
Why am I not surprised.


----------



## montelatici

SAYIT said:


> José;8877769 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *SAYIT*
> You are quick to denigrate others, Princess, but when faced with cold, hard facts you run like a little girl. You were quick to judge me "clueless" and disappeared once the facts were posted in response to your shrill braying:
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by José
> How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?
> At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.
> Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally posted by SAYIT
> Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg
> 
> RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.
> 
> Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell I did... I just deemed the subject so important that I chose to address it in a separate thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean rather than address it you chose to slither away and then lie.
> Typical anti-Israel scummy.
> Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...


Typical Zionist personal attack. 

Why am I not surprised.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You keep posting this citation, but nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne actually says that.

This is one, single and unofficial research paper by the _The Bulletin of the French Research Center_ in Jerusalem (CRFJ) --- an annual publication that aims to promote research and activities CRFJ.  While I'm sure it would make a lively debate, it doesn't comport with the official understanding of Palestine in the Mandate Era. 

The Treaty did not then (1924), and did not through the term of the Mandate (to 1948) alter the status of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: &#8220;The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.&#8221;123 And, thereafter, &#8220;Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.&#8221;124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> OK, where is your link?


*(OBSERVATION)*

Nothing in the Treaty changes the Palestine Order in Council:



			
				League of Nations (LoN) said:
			
		

> 2. In this Order, unless the contrary intention appears,
> 
> "Secretary of State" means one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
> 
> "Register of voters" or "register" means the register prepared in accordance with this Order of the persons entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> "Member" means a member of the Legislative Council.
> 
> "District" means one of the administrative divisions into which Palestine may be divided by the High Commissioner.
> 
> For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--
> 
> (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.
> 
> (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> _*SOURCE:*_ LoN POiC  10 August 1922



The official position, amplified by international public notice, states that:

"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.



			
				UN - UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT said:
			
		

> "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> 
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.​"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."​
> _*SOurCE:*_ PAL/138 27 February 1948



*(COMMENT)*

One interpretation of the Treaty by a French Research Facility does not make law; or even (necessarily) a sound and valid interpretation of the intent at the time the Treaty was composed (1922-23), or the intent when the Mandate terminated (1948).

For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration.  The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.

At the end of the day, on 15 May 1948:  Palestine was:

Partitioned with a segment made Independence by the Jewish Agency.
The unclaimed segment was legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.
The Nationality and Citizenship status under the British civil administration or the UNPC civil administration does not change these very simple facts, until the PLO declared independence in 1988.

Don't read more into the treaty than what is there.  Under the treaty, Palestine was not discussed, at all --- but was included in the Syrian Territory.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's homeland has been taken away then ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the land of Palestine was not a homeland to any group until 1948 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> 52With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> OK, where is your link?
Click to expand...


You keep posting this link as if it has any merit.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.
Click to expand...

Then I guess they missed their chance, didn't they? 

So you never answered me, when are you giving your own land back to the indians?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The partition plan had nothing to do with the right to sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did as it opened the door for the arab muslims to show they were ready for free determination and sovereignty. Their refusal to accept both of these shows they are not ready to play in the big boys league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
> 
> Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Click to expand...





 First things first that declaration was not in force in 1948 was it, so is irrelevant to the subject matter.

 Secondly it deals with colonialism which again does not have any relevance as Palestine was never a colony of any nation after 1960

 Thirdly the Palestinians were never stopped from declaring independence by any nation or ruling power but themselves so again this report is irrelevant to the subject natter

 Fourthly even though the Palestinians showed  Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness  they were still accepted as a nation by the world in 1988 when they declared independence. So making your cherry picked small part of the UN resolution irrelevant to the subject matter.

 Lastly being just a UN resolution it has no basis in international law and can not be implemented legally.


 Your go .............


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old school.
> 
> Parking your ass on a piece of land with a gun no longer means that  it is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Palestinians because that is exactly how they think and act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And backed up by international law.
Click to expand...





 What International Law would that be then, and not some UN resolution that did not get approved until 30 years after the Partition plan.

 Also remember that what ever International law supports the Palestinians  side also supports the Israeli side.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't have, is a right to someone else's homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's homeland has been taken away then ?
> 
> Bear in mind that the land of Palestine was not a homeland to any group until 1948 .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a broader international context, the Nationality law showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91
> 
> 52With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> (1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them92​
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.123 And, thereafter, Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.124
> 
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> OK, where is your link?
Click to expand...





 Irrelevant as this is just the thoughts of an ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST who manipulated treaties and added the term's Palestine and Palestinian into them.


 Now you need to follow the route through Wikipedia.

Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Jump to: navigation, search 


This article is about the historical geographic region. For the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see Palestinian territories. For the declared state (country), see State of Palestine. For other uses, see Palestine (disambiguation).

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 State of Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Jump to: navigation, search 


This article is about the state proclaimed in 1988 that later became an observer of the United Nations. For the administration established under the Oslo Accords, see Palestinian National Authority. For the administration of the Gaza Strip, see Governance of the Gaza Strip. For the state proclaimed in 1948, see All-Palestine Government

All-Palestine Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The All-Palestine Government (Arabic: &#1581;&#1603;&#1608;&#1605;&#1577; &#1593;&#1605;&#1608;&#1605; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606; Hukumat 'umum Filastin) was established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was soon recognized by all Arab League members, except Jordan. Though jurisdiction of the Government was declared to cover the whole of the former Mandatory Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip


*Now to the reality of Palestine as a state*

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Palestine, officially the State of Palestine_ (Arabic: &#1583;&#1608;&#1604;&#1577; &#1601;&#1604;&#1587;&#1591;&#1610;&#1606;* Dawlat Filas&#7789;&#299;n), is a sovereign state in the Levant. Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,


 So you see International Law dictates that Palestine did not exist before 15 November 1988.

 Your source is heavily biased and relies on the Palestinian professors own personal views to expand the reality. The treaties he cites do not contain any reference to Palestine or the Palestinian people, nor do they grant statehood to Palestine or sovereignty to the Palestinian people. In a nutshell your link is a fake, a fabrication an ISLAMONAZI LIE_


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are not "given." They are inherent.
> 
> The Mandate did not have land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course back up your claim with proof from an unbiased and corroborative source ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who claimed that rights were given and the mandate had the land.
> 
> You should back up your claim.
Click to expand...





 Which has been posted umpteen times and you have ignored it everytime. Start with the San Remo conference and end with the LoN mandate of Palestine and see that the British Government had full control of the land and governed it until such a time as the inhabitants could show they had  free determination and could stand on their own feet. The Palestinians have proved they are not capable of free determination and are no capable of governing themselves . Look no further than the civil war going on between hamas and fatah.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.
Click to expand...




 The Oslo accords were are treaty signed by the Palestinian representatives and Israel that set out certain things that each side had to do. See here

Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Oslo Accords are a set of agreements between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO): the Oslo I Accord, signed in Oslo in 1993[1] and the Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba in 1995.[2]_* The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process that aimed the conclusion of a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, and fulfil the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination". *_
Outline of the peace plan[edit]

Stated goals of the Oslo Accords were inter alia a Palestinian interim Self-Government (not the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Legislative Council) and a permanent settlement (of unresolved issues) within five years, based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Although the agreements recognize the Palestinian "legitimate and political rights", they remain silent about their fate after the interim period. *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern*.


 End of the interim period[edit]

In May 1999, the five years interim period ended without reaching a comprehensive peace agreement,* but elements of the Oslo Accords remained*. The interim Palestinian Authority became permanent, and a dominant factor of the PLO. *The West Bank remained divided into Areas A, B and C, the latter some 60% of the West Bank and under exclusive military and civilian control*, leaving the Palestinian inhabitants as an oppressed population with little rights. Also the Israeli Civil Administration, despite what the name suggests a military institution, is still functioning in full. The IsraeliPalestinian Joint Water Committee still exists as well


Key agreements[edit]

Key agreements in the Oslo process were:
##*IsraelPLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.*##The Oslo I Accord (1993).* The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council *(Article VII).
##*The GazaJericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area*, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement.[4] Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one.[8] This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel.
##*The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank.* Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.



*Try again as it was a Peace treaty and it is still in force.*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José;8877769 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell I did... I just deemed the subject so important that I chose to address it in a separate thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean rather than address it you chose to slither away and then lie.
> Typical anti-Israel scummy.
> Why am I not surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Zionist personal attack.
> 
> Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...





 Well you would know little boy as you do it all the time.


----------



## montelatici

The fact that what you write leads me to believe you have serious emotional issues, is not a personal attack.  It is, hopefully, a catalyst that will lead you to seek professional help.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ownership has never changed hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.
Click to expand...

Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?

Representative government (_indeed, representation itself_) does not require (_indeed, it eschews_) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.

The People speak their piece at election-time.

Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?

Was there a substantive problem with the (_legitimizing or accrediting_) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?

If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...

If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian representative signed land away in the Oslo Accords in return for sovereignty of the rest of the west bank and gaza
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?
> 
> Representative government (_indeed, representation itself_) does not require (_indeed, it eschews_) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.
> 
> The People speak their piece at election-time.
> 
> Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?
> 
> Was there a substantive problem with the (_legitimizing or accrediting_) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?
> 
> If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
Click to expand...


*The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*

Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## montelatici

* "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[9][10] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"&#8212;such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords"*,

Benjamin Netanyahu


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which applies to the arab muslims as they were given the right to declare a nation on mandated land. The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead.
> The arab muslims tried unsuccessfully to wipe out the Jews on 3 separate occasions against the very charter you are claiming was never granted to them. But these 3 attempts at genocide show that they used their right  to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> Not one nation is interfering in the internal affairs or disrespecting their sovereign rights unless you can prove otherwise from a reputable unbiased source. What is happening is that because of terrorist attacks, violence and belligerent actions by the arab muslims Israel is forced to take measures under the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to try and stop the attacks. This leads to the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS declaring that Israel is an apartheid state when the truth is the arab muslim state is apartheid in the extreme
> 
> 
> 
> Over 100 UN resolutions, say you're full of shit!
> 
> People like you, don't deserve a country.
Click to expand...

100 resolutions and 5 dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Jump on it Billy.


----------



## montelatici

_The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead._

That is Zionist code for the Haganah and Irgun began attacking Christian and Muslim villages slaughtering Muslim and Christian civilians, and the Muslims and Christians made the mistake of trying to defend themselves.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> _The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead._
> 
> That is Zionist code for the Haganah and Irgun began attacking Christian and Muslim villages slaughtering Muslim and Christian civilians, and the Muslims and Christians made the mistake of trying to defend themselves.



This from Haniya is Islasmic code to deny history.  Meanwhile, Haniya, since you want us to believe you are so worried about the Christians, why aren't you posting about their terrible conditions they have to live under in those vast lands which make up the rest of the Middle East which are ruled by Muslims.  Maybe the harassment, dead bodies and destroyed churches don't bother you at all if you can't drag the Jews into this.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.[/quote]
> Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?
> 
> Representative government (_indeed, representation itself_) does not require (_indeed, it eschews_) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.
> 
> The People speak their piece at election-time.
> 
> Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?
> 
> Was there a substantive problem with the (_legitimizing or accrediting_) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?
> 
> If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*
> 
> Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, this does not help us to better understand whether Popular Ratification (affirmation) of a Deal was required, in order to render it legitimate and binding, as one of our colleagues has suggested by implication.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

Kondor3, montelatici, _et al,_

I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.



Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*
> 
> Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this does not help us to better understand whether Popular Ratification (affirmation) of a Deal was required, in order to render it legitimate and binding, as one of our colleagues has suggested by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Kondor3, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this does not help us to better understand whether Popular Ratification (affirmation) of a Deal was required, in order to render it legitimate and binding, as one of our colleagues has suggested by implication.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent?  Think about it.  You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration. The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.



That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.

However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.

Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent?  Think about it.  You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth hurts , doesn't it?
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration. The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.
> 
> Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
Click to expand...


The Treaty of Lausanne was Palestines birthday?? Is that what you just said?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, _et al,_

BLUF:  Not often.



montelatici said:


> The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent?  Think about it.  You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.


*(QUESTIONs)*

Are you suggesting that:


Regarding Inferiority:  The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?
Regarding Capacity:  The State of Palestine is fully capable of entering into peaceful negotiations, in good faith?  
Regarding Violence:  The State of Palestine has not supported Jihadist activity and armed struggle, in opposition to the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Nations.

*(EXHIBIT)*


Regarding Capacity:
Article 21 Charter: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization.
Article 13 Covenant:  Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Regarding Violence:
Article 9 Charter: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
Article 13 Covenant:  There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?


Not any more.

When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.

And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...




> _Sharon's breach of Oslo was step too far
> 
> Israeli move into Palestinian-controlled area was serious risk_


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The fact that what you write leads me to believe you have serious emotional issues, is not a personal attack.  It is, hopefully, a catalyst that will lead you to seek professional help.





 Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help, you see I am not a muslims that exists on violence and lies. But I have studied islam in great depth and know all about how it works. How in offers so much yet delivers so little, how it persecutes non muslims till they either leave their homes or convert to islam. So ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST what do you have to say about that, a Christian that knows too much about islam. What you call an ISLAMOPHOBE


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Regarding Inferiority: The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?



You don't know much about this conflict, do you?

Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oslo was not a peace agreement. Nothing in Oslo was ratified by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?
> 
> Representative government (_indeed, representation itself_) does not require (_indeed, it eschews_) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.
> 
> The People speak their piece at election-time.
> 
> Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?
> 
> Was there a substantive problem with the (_legitimizing or accrediting_) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?
> 
> If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*
> 
> Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





 Your point being what exactly, that this changes the definition or representative government. The PLO had the power to sign on behalf of the Palestinian people, and they signed for the above as just a small part of the whole.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> * "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[9][10] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords"*,
> 
> Benjamin Netanyahu





 Just goes to prove that muslims cant negotiate to save their lives. Is it any different to how individual muslims interpret the Koran and hadiths that allow them to murder and rape, or even commit suicide.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Oslo ratified by legitimate representatives of the Palestinians or was it not?
> 
> Representative government (_indeed, representation itself_) does not require (_indeed, it eschews_) popular ratification of any particular legally-binding agreement.
> 
> The People speak their piece at election-time.
> 
> Did The People impeach or otherwise overthrow Palestinian leadership in connection with Oslo?
> 
> Was there a substantive problem with the (_legitimizing or accrediting_) credentials of the Palestinian representatives engaged in Oslo?
> 
> If not, then the Palestinian representatives who conducted Oslo were legitimate in all respects, and...
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*
> 
> Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point being what exactly, that this changes the definition or representative government. The PLO had the power to sign on behalf of the Palestinian people, and they signed for the above as just a small part of the whole.
Click to expand...


The PLO has no authority to sign away the rights of the people without their consent.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> _The arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and refused the offer and went to war instead._
> 
> That is Zionist code for the Haganah and Irgun began attacking Christian and Muslim villages slaughtering Muslim and Christian civilians, and the Muslims and Christians made the mistake of trying to defend themselves.






 WRONG AGAIN ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST the arab muslims exercised their right to free determination and attacked the Jews in force. This one act being a severe breach on the UN charter and the Geneva conventions that disallow all out war. It was the muslims that invaded Israel and were beaten back by inferior forces. Not once but 4 times has Israel beaten back the massed armies of islam . So now islam has turned its attention to the Christians and are terrorising them into leaving the Holy Land.

Ethnic Cleansing Could Lead to Mass Exodus of Middle East Christians

 The former President of Lebanon, Amine Gemayel, is a Maronite Christian. He recently warned of "an exodus approaching biblical proportions." Gemayel told a gathering in Zurich of Christian Solidarity International (CSI) and other human rights activists that the current wave of church burnings, murders, and riots against Christians in the Mideast is the work of radical Islamists. The former Lebanese leaders own brother had been assassinated in Beirut by these same jihadists.

The Jewish Press » » Christians in Israel to EU: ?Stop Christian Ethnic Cleansing in Arab Countries?

Flight of Christians from Mid-East Reaches Syria

 A mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs, have been fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army, many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:
			
		

> A mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs, have been fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army,* many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.*



And the US supports the overthrow of Assad.

Just like the US supports Israel's attacks against Christians in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent?  Think about it.  You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not need Roccor to do that the Palestinians are very capable of doing it themselves. They show that they cant agree on anything when they mass murder each others children. The fact is they are inferior, incapable, violent and stuck In  a 7c mentality
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration. The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.
> 
> Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
Click to expand...





 Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine. The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
 And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all intent and purposes, your citation means nothing, in that it doesn't change or alter the Nationality protocols established under LoN guidance, and the procedures for citizenship that were established under British civil administration. The Treaty merely codified the processes, protocols and procedural authorities that were already in place by 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.
> 
> Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. *As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine.* The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
> And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.
> 
> When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.
> 
> And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sharon's breach of Oslo was step too far
> 
> Israeli move into Palestinian-controlled area was serious risk_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 So says a "Palestinian source" that is not corroborated by anyone else.

 But what about the Palestinian breach of the oslo accords that happened before the alleged breach by Israel

9 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 2003 Israeli Response to Palestinian Breach of the Oslo Agreements, The Current Developments

Is It Time Israel Ends Oslo?



 Once again you show your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED and one sided twisted view of reality.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Inferiority: The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know much about this conflict, do you?
> 
> Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.
Click to expand...






 Evidence that palestine has ever been a self sufficient country, you can start with its national currency, a copy of its passports, the name of its ruler/leader and the capital city for starters. Without any of these it was never a country just a blot on the map.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*
> 
> Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being what exactly, that this changes the definition or representative government. The PLO had the power to sign on behalf of the Palestinian people, and they signed for the above as just a small part of the whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PLO has no authority to sign away the rights of the people without their consent.
Click to expand...





 The people gave their consent by not opposing the move and welcoming Arafat as their leader. As is the case in most Islamic nations they were either ruled by a dictator who did not need the peoples consent, or by a representative leader who does what he sees fit for the people. They are not a democracy were every single person has a say as that would be too long winded and costly


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mass exodus of Christians, including a group evacuated from the besieged city of Homs, have been fleeing Syrian cities for safety. Caught in the middle of a showdown between opposition forces and the Syrian army,* many Christians fear the prospect of an Islamist-led government if President Bashar al-Assad is deposed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the US supports the overthrow of Assad.
> 
> Just like the US supports Israel's attacks against Christians in Palestine.
Click to expand...




 Your evidence of this is what exactly, some LYING ISLAMONAZI JEW HATING source.  Or is it another of your fantasies


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct and it is all that I have ever claimed. By the time that the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine's international borders were defined, Palestinians were Palestinian nationals and Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> However, none of these things could legally take place as long as Palestine was still under Turkish rule. The Treaty of Lausanne released Palestine from Turkish rule. It was Palestine's birthday as it was for all the other new states in the region.
> 
> Along with this was the inherent right to self determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. *As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine.* The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
> And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.
Click to expand...


And when did Jordan exist on Palestinian land. Once you understand that you will then see that Palestine was larger than you think.

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 History[edit]

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]

Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]

Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]

For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]

Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does not alter the fact that Palestine did not achieve statehood until 1988, before this time it was just an aspiration. *As we keep pointing out those borders took in trans Jordan, Syria and what you claim is all of Palestine.* The treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but did mention trans Jordan and Syria, this was deliberate because the mandate wanted to settle the arabs on Palestinian land before anything else.
> And the Palestinians showed they were not ready for any of that until 1988, which is why it took so long to implement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when did Jordan exist on Palestinian land. Once you understand that you will then see that Palestine was larger than you think.
> 
> San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> History[edit]
> 
> The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]
> 
> Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]
> 
> Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]
> 
> For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]
> 
> Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]
Click to expand...


So, how does any of that refute my post?


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Inferiority: The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know much about this conflict, do you?
> 
> Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.
Click to expand...


Palestine was a country? When?


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> I still don't think that the Palestinian People actually have a capacity to enter into any kind of an agreement, let alone "ratify" something.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I doubt that the Palestinians could ratify the color of Toilet Paper without an Intifada; they are just that good.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The racist one speaks again. Is there ever a post where you don't attempt to portray the Palestinians as inferior, incapable or violent?  Think about it.  You would have made a great Nazi propagandist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what have the Palestinians ever ratified? Anything?
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help...


Denial, ain't just a river in Egypt.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that but it is not true. Palestine's final international border was defined several years before the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when did Jordan exist on Palestinian land. Once you understand that you will then see that Palestine was larger than you think.
> 
> San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> History[edit]
> 
> The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]
> 
> Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]
> 
> Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]
> 
> For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]
> 
> Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how does any of that refute my post?
Click to expand...





Are you still denying that Palestine originally included trans Jordan and Syria as defined at San Remo ?

 Palestine's borders were in effect based on the borders of other nations until such time as the mandate was enacted fully and nations resurrected from the past once again flourished. To all legal intents and purposes Palestine still has no International borders until they are negotiated with its neighbours.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial, ain't just a river in Egypt.
Click to expand...





 And your ignorance is bliss as it lets you make a complete fool of yourself.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> So says a "Palestinian source" that is not corroborated by anyone else.


The Guardian, is a "Palestinian source"?

My my, all this time I thought they were British.

Doesn't matter.  Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals and I could care less what you personally think about a particular website.

Either provide evidence my source is wrong, or shove your head up your ass!




Phoenall said:


> But what about the Palestinian breach of the oslo accords that happened before the alleged breach by Israel


You talk like a 2 year old.

_"...he started it!"_


_"...I didn't do anything!"_


_"...what about what he did!"_

You don't just have emotional issues, you're full blown mentally retarded!





Phoenall said:


> 9 New England Journal of International and Comparative Law 2003 Israeli Response to Palestinian Breach of the Oslo Agreements, The Current Developments


Talk about a biased source, your little link admits that the views are from an Israeli perspective.

At least my source, posted the views of both sides.




Phoenall said:


> Is It Time Israel Ends Oslo?


Although this source is a little more professional, this article is just as biased as your last one.



> _From *juniors* link (probably the missing one) :
> Since the Oslo Accords came into effect, each time a breakthrough seems close, the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] leadership, has exhibited a perplexing way of breaching the Accords' conditions and *provoking Israel*_


 "...provoking Israel."

Israel's had an ongoing, illegal occupation for almost 50 years now, but it's the Palestinian's "provoking" them?

Yep, you're a fuckin' retard, alright!




Phoenall said:


> Once again you show your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED and one sided twisted view of reality.


And you've shown that "reality", is not something you are aware of.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> And your ignorance is bliss as it lets you make a complete fool of yourself.



What am I ignorant of?


----------



## SAYIT

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.*
> 
> Oslo I Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being what exactly, that this changes the definition or representative government. The PLO had the power to sign on behalf of the Palestinian people, and they signed for the above as just a small part of the whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The PLO has no authority to sign away the rights of the people without their consent.
Click to expand...


Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace. 
Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your ignorance is bliss as it lets you make a complete fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am I ignorant of?
Click to expand...


That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?


You can't give, what you don't have!

That land was never Israel's.


----------



## Billo_Really

SAYIT said:


> Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
> Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.


There's more than two choices.

Israel could end the occupation.

There, that's a 3rd choice.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give, what you don't have!
> 
> That land was never Israel's.
Click to expand...


What, the non-native people in the US have no land?

How is it different how you acquired your land, and how Israel acquired theirs? No diseased blankets from Israel?


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.
> 
> When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.
> 
> And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sharon's breach of Oslo was step too far
> 
> Israeli move into Palestinian-controlled area was serious risk_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


More lame deflection. 
At issue is the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is: 
did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.


----------



## Kondor3

SAYIT said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.
> 
> When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.
> 
> And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon's breach of Oslo was step too far
> 
> Israeli move into Palestinian-controlled area was serious risk[/I]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lame deflection.
> *At issue is* the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
> did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
> The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The issues are:

1. the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord

2. the validity of PLO actions in formulating that accord

3. whether Popular Ratification of treaties is required under systems of representative government.

====================

At the point in time where (a) it was concluded, (b) it was still in its original and pristine condition, and (c) no breaches had yet occurred on the part of either side...

My own initial reactions - rightly or wrongly - are:

1. Oslo was legitimate

2. the PLO was empowered to treat on behalf of the Palestinian people

3. popular ratification is not required


----------



## natstew

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I have no emotional issues and do not need professional help...
> 
> 
> 
> Denial, ain't just a river in Egypt.
Click to expand...


No it's not, It's a big river of delusion running right through your brain!


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So says a "Palestinian source" that is not corroborated by anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> The Guardian, is a "Palestinian source"?
> 
> My my, all this time I thought they were British.
> 
> Doesn't matter.  Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals and I could care less what you personally think about a particular website.
> 
> Either provide evidence my source is wrong, or shove your head up your ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about the Palestinian breach of the oslo accords that happened before the alleged breach by Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk like a 2 year old.
> 
> _"...he started it!"_
> 
> 
> _"...I didn't do anything!"_
> 
> 
> _"...what about what he did!"_
> 
> You don't just have emotional issues, you're full blown mentally retarded!
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a biased source, your little link admits that the views are from an Israeli perspective.
> 
> At least my source, posted the views of both sides.
> 
> 
> Although this source is a little more professional, this article is just as biased as your last one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _From *juniors* link (probably the missing one) :
> Since the Oslo Accords came into effect, each time a breakthrough seems close, the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] leadership, has exhibited a perplexing way of breaching the Accords' conditions and *provoking Israel*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...provoking Israel."
> 
> Israel's had an ongoing, illegal occupation for almost 50 years now, but it's the Palestinian's "provoking" them?
> 
> Yep, you're a fuckin' retard, alright!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED and one sided twisted view of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you've shown that "reality", is not something you are aware of.
Click to expand...




 Their source is Palestinian, they have just published the piece as this the first sentence shows


"The Israelis crossed a red line today," said Ghassan Khatib, *a Palestinian *who was involved in the peace process. "Oslo is dead." 

 YOU LOSE

 Just putting the time line right, but then you don't like seeing your hero's dhown in a true light do you.


 Still as valid as any of your links as it tells the reality.

 The Gatestone institute biased ?     That is the biggest laugh ever, now you are clutching at straws


 Not Illegal at all according to International Law judges, but valid under the terms of the Geneva convention. Something that you have not even attempted to answer.

 My reality is that both sides are just as much to blame as each other, but at the end of the day  the Palestinians refusal to meet and talk does neither side any favours.

 You on the other hand refuse to see that the Palestinians constant terrorist attacks and BLOOD LIBELS are just fanning the flames of hatred even more. How about Israel do to the Palestinians what you advocate the Americans do to the Jews ?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your ignorance is bliss as it lets you make a complete fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am I ignorant of?
Click to expand...




 The reality of the Israeli/muslim conflict and just who can end it.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give, what you don't have!
> 
> That land was never Israel's.
Click to expand...




 So when was it the arab Palestinian muslims, as they had not owned it for longer than 22 years in the 1400 years of their existence. You forget the legal landowners under International Law gave the land to the Jews for their NATIONAL HOME. Just as they gave the land of Syria and Jordan as the arab Palestinian muslims national homes.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
> Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more than two choices.
> 
> Israel could end the occupation.
> 
> There, that's a 3rd choice.
Click to expand...




 Why is it always Israel that has to do something in your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED MIND why cant it be the Palestinians that have to give up terrorism, violence ands belligerence as they were told in 1949, 1967 and 1973 by the UN.


----------



## Phoenall

SAYIT said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those representatives were legitimate, then the Deal(s) which they helped to broker are both legitimate and binding, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.
> 
> When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.
> 
> And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sharon's breach of Oslo was step too far
> 
> Israeli move into Palestinian-controlled area was serious risk_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lame deflection.
> At issue is the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
> did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
> The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.
Click to expand...





The issue is even more complicated as if they don't have the authority to negotiate then Palestine can not be a sovereign nation and can not be represented at the UN. So  either Palestine is legitimate and cam about because of its ability to decide for the people, or it does not exist and can never exist because the people wont give them the right to decide.


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more.
> 
> When one side is found in breach of the "agreement", that "agreement" is no longer binding and consequently, un-enforceable.
> 
> And in this case, that side happens to be Israel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More lame deflection.
> *At issue is* the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord and the question raised is:
> did (or does) any Palestinian gov't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of its people?
> The responses by all who have posted (Tinmore, Monte and Billo) have danced around but failed to answer that simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> The issues are:
> 
> 1. the legitimacy of the Oslo Accord
> 
> 2. the validity of PLO actions in formulating that accord
> 
> 3. whether Popular Ratification of treaties is required under systems of representative government.
> 
> ====================
> 
> At the point in time where (a) it was concluded, (b) it was still in its original and pristine condition, and (c) no breaches had yet occurred on the part of either side...
> 
> My own initial reactions - rightly or wrongly - are:
> 
> 1. Oslo was legitimate
> 
> 2. the PLO was empowered to treat on behalf of the Palestinian people
> 
> 3. popular ratification is not required
Click to expand...





 The clinching deal was that parts of the Oslo accords became International law and are still in force today. These include the aspects that the ISLAMONAZI's try and delegitimise because they don't help the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Inferiority: The State of Palestine is able to stand alone, as a productive and peaceful Middle East Regional nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know much about this conflict, do you?
> 
> Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine was a country? When?
Click to expand...




> ... in that *country*; and ...for placing the *country* under...development of the* country*. ... of the* country* or of the public... needs of the *country*, having...of the *country,* in so far as...benefit of the *country* in... defence of the *country*...of the *country* and to safeguard...may leave the *country* without...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate



OH, about then.


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, if true, brings us back to Israel's oft-stated gripe ... that they have, in those hapless Palestinian "refugees," no partner for peace.
> Therefore the conflict, as both Hamas and the PLO have codified in their charters, can only end in the complete destruction of one people or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more than two choices.
> 
> Israel could end the occupation.
> There, that's a 3rd choice.
Click to expand...


Stop being a pretentious jackass.
How does your "3rd choice" end the Arab threat? 
In fact, how does anything the Israelis do, short of marching into the sea, satisfy you or their "peaceful" Arab neighbors?
There has not been a moment in modern Israel's existence that her neighbors were not a threat to attack her regardless of the position of the boundaries/borders.


----------



## toastman

Palestine became a sovereign country in 1988


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know much about this conflict, do you?
> 
> Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was a country? When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... in that *country*; and ...for placing the *country* under...development of the* country*. ... of the* country* or of the public... needs of the *country*, having...of the *country,* in so far as...benefit of the *country* in... defence of the *country*...of the *country* and to safeguard...may leave the *country* without...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH, about then.
Click to expand...

Tinny...

You guys (pro-Palestinian side) really and truly crack me up, when you start leaning so hard upon the use of Descriptor A or B to outline Old Palestine, and to pretend that such a verbiage ipso facto rendered Palestine a 'nation' in a Real World setting...

The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...

With no identifiable holistic all-of-Old-Palestine ownership or sovereignty extant nor internationally recognized at the time of the mandate, and with no autonomous self-governance nor charter nor incorporation nor diplomatic credentials nor national standing at the time...

The use of the word 'country' may easily and rightfully and defensibly be construed as '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_'.

'_Country_' is much shorter than '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_' - don't you think?

Your side has been trying to sell that old canard for 66 years now, and you haven't even made a dent in global public opinion, beyond the domain of Islam, in order to bring the rest of Mankind over to your viewpoint.

After 66 years, comes a time when the Grown-Ups concede that the canard just isn't sell-able.

Oh... and... by the way... the very first reference to Palestine in that document describes it merely as the '_territory_ of Palestine' formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

Words don't make a country... money and brains and balls make a country... along with enough force and victories on the battlefield to win and sustain a new country.

The Jews were smart enough and courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.

The Palestinian Muslims were not smart enough nor courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.

Had the Palestinian Muslims tended to their own Nation-Building rather than trying to interfere with the Other Guys, and had their Arab-Muslim neighbors not tried to interfere with the Other Guys, the Palestinians would not have been living in shitholes for the past 66 years.

But... it was their choice... and that choice had consequences... no Do-Overs allowed at this late juncture.

And all the dusted-over, rusted-over, crusted-over, molded-over Old Legal Standings and pleadings and interpretations and spin-doctoring in the world isn't going to change that now.

You're (metaphorically) swinging after the bell, and much of the rest of the world is getting a good belly-laugh over it.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So says a "Palestinian source" that is not corroborated by anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> The Guardian, is a "Palestinian source"?
> 
> My my, all this time I thought they were British.
> 
> Doesn't matter.  Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals and I could care less what you personally think about a particular website.
> 
> Either provide evidence my source is wrong, or shove your head up your ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about the Palestinian breach of the oslo accords that happened before the alleged breach by Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk like a 2 year old.
> 
> _"...he started it!"_
> 
> 
> _"...I didn't do anything!"_
> 
> 
> _"...what about what he did!"_
> 
> You don't just have emotional issues, you're full blown mentally retarded!
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a biased source, your little link admits that the views are from an Israeli perspective.
> 
> At least my source, posted the views of both sides.
> 
> 
> Although this source is a little more professional, this article is just as biased as your last one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _From *juniors* link (probably the missing one) :
> Since the Oslo Accords came into effect, each time a breakthrough seems close, the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO] leadership, has exhibited a perplexing way of breaching the Accords' conditions and *provoking Israel*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...provoking Israel."
> 
> Israel's had an ongoing, illegal occupation for almost 50 years now, but it's the Palestinian's "provoking" them?
> 
> Yep, you're a fuckin' retard, alright!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ISLAMONAZI JEW HATRED and one sided twisted view of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you've shown that "reality", is not something you are aware of.
Click to expand...


Billo accusing someone else of talking like a two year old LOL!!!!

Now THAT'S funny!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know much about this conflict, do you?
> 
> Palestine was a self sufficient country until Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed the vast majority of its economic infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was a country? When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... in that *country*; and ...for placing the *country* under...development of the* country*. ... of the* country* or of the public... needs of the *country*, having...of the *country,* in so far as...benefit of the *country* in... defence of the *country*...of the *country* and to safeguard...may leave the *country* without...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH, about then.
Click to expand...





 Wrong context if you look at your link, in that country means land and not nation 


 Another fail try again, as Palestine was not a country under international law until 1988


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Palestine became a sovereign country in 1988


Well, they _think_ they did, anyway.

Just like they _think_ they're a sovereign country now.

While much of the rest of the world hides its contemptuous smiles and laughter.


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you won't give back your land to the indians or to Mexico, but want others to give back their land to arab scum?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give, what you don't have!
> 
> That land was never Israel's.
Click to expand...

Who told you that bald-faced lie, Billy? They've owned it since the Big March.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was a country? When?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... in that *country*; and ...for placing the *country* under...development of the* country*. ... of the* country* or of the public... needs of the *country*, having...of the *country,* in so far as...benefit of the *country* in... defence of the *country*...of the *country* and to safeguard...may leave the *country* without...
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH, about then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinny...
> 
> You guys (pro-Palestinian side) really and truly crack me up, when you start leaning so hard upon the use of Descriptor A or B to outline Old Palestine, and to pretend that such a verbiage ipso facto rendered Palestine a 'nation' in a Real World setting...
> 
> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...
> 
> With no identifiable holistic all-of-Old-Palestine ownership or sovereignty extant nor internationally recognized at the time of the mandate, and with no autonomous self-governance nor charter nor incorporation nor diplomatic credentials nor national standing at the time...
> 
> The use of the word 'country' may easily and rightfully and defensibly be construed as '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_'.
> 
> '_Country_' is much shorter than '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_' - don't you think?
> 
> Your side has been trying to sell that old canard for 66 years now, and you haven't even made a dent in global public opinion, beyond the domain of Islam, in order to bring the rest of Mankind over to your viewpoint.
> 
> After 66 years, comes a time when the Grown-Ups concede that the canard just isn't sell-able.
> 
> Oh... and... by the way... the very first reference to Palestine in that document describes it merely as the '_territory_ of Palestine' formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Words don't make a country... money and brains and balls make a country... along with enough force and victories on the battlefield to win and sustain a new country.
> 
> The Jews were smart enough and courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.
> 
> The Palestinian Muslims were not smart enough nor courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.
> 
> Had the Palestinian Muslims tended to their own Nation-Building rather than trying to interfere with the Other Guys, and had their Arab-Muslim neighbors not tried to interfere with the Other Guys, the Palestinians would not have been living in shitholes for the past 66 years.
> 
> But... it was their choice... and that choice had consequences... no Do-Overs allowed at this late juncture.
> 
> And all the dusted-over, rusted-over, crusted-over, molded-over Old Legal Standings and pleadings and interpretations and spin-doctoring in the world isn't going to change that now.
> 
> You're (metaphorically) swinging after the bell, and much of the rest of the world is getting a good belly-laugh over it.
Click to expand...




> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...



*Irrelevant. * Here is resolution 3236 in its entirety.



> 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 
> 
> The General Assembly,
> 
> Having considered the question of Palestine,
> 
> Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,1/
> 
> Having also heard other statements made during the debate,
> 
> Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved and recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,
> 
> Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> 4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
> 
> 5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> 6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
> 
> 7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;
> 
> 8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
> 
> 9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.



Where does it say that Palestine needs a particular status for the Palestinians to have rights?


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH, about then.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinny...
> 
> You guys (pro-Palestinian side) really and truly crack me up, when you start leaning so hard upon the use of Descriptor A or B to outline Old Palestine, and to pretend that such a verbiage ipso facto rendered Palestine a 'nation' in a Real World setting...
> 
> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...
> 
> With no identifiable holistic all-of-Old-Palestine ownership or sovereignty extant nor internationally recognized at the time of the mandate, and with no autonomous self-governance nor charter nor incorporation nor diplomatic credentials nor national standing at the time...
> 
> The use of the word 'country' may easily and rightfully and defensibly be construed as '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_'.
> 
> '_Country_' is much shorter than '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_' - don't you think?
> 
> Your side has been trying to sell that old canard for 66 years now, and you haven't even made a dent in global public opinion, beyond the domain of Islam, in order to bring the rest of Mankind over to your viewpoint.
> 
> After 66 years, comes a time when the Grown-Ups concede that the canard just isn't sell-able.
> 
> Oh... and... by the way... the very first reference to Palestine in that document describes it merely as the '_territory_ of Palestine' formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Words don't make a country... money and brains and balls make a country... along with enough force and victories on the battlefield to win and sustain a new country.
> 
> The Jews were smart enough and courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.
> 
> The Palestinian Muslims were not smart enough nor courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.
> 
> Had the Palestinian Muslims tended to their own Nation-Building rather than trying to interfere with the Other Guys, and had their Arab-Muslim neighbors not tried to interfere with the Other Guys, the Palestinians would not have been living in shitholes for the past 66 years.
> 
> But... it was their choice... and that choice had consequences... no Do-Overs allowed at this late juncture.
> 
> And all the dusted-over, rusted-over, crusted-over, molded-over Old Legal Standings and pleadings and interpretations and spin-doctoring in the world isn't going to change that now.
> 
> You're (metaphorically) swinging after the bell, and much of the rest of the world is getting a good belly-laugh over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Irrelevant. * Here is resolution 3236 in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 
> 
> The General Assembly,
> 
> Having considered the question of Palestine,
> 
> Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,1/
> 
> Having also heard other statements made during the debate,
> 
> Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved and recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,
> 
> Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> 4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
> 
> 5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> 6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
> 
> 7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;
> 
> 8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
> 
> 9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine needs a particular status for the Palestinians to have rights?
Click to expand...


Shooting fireworks rockets at Israel gives them the status as war combattants, and until they realize that they've already lost the war, and they surrender, the only rights they have are the prisoner of war rights, which the arabs don't even recognize with their treatment of captured Israeli soldiers. So what rights are you looking for? The same right you have to keep indian land? Or are you a hypocrite? Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

What is your purpose here?  What is it, exactly, are you saying is being denied?



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Palestine needs a particular status for the Palestinians to have rights?


*(COMMENT)*

Remembering that the Resolution [A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974] was adopted a quarter of a century after the initial invasion by the external interference _(Arab League Armies)_ and some nearly seven years after the 1967 War which liberated the West Bank from Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip from Egyptian control --- how doe this resolution relate?

1.  The right to self-determination without external interference; was not obstructed.  The Palestinians declared independence in 1988.
2.  The inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property was NOT taken away, denied, or transferred by the Israeli.  It was forfeited by the Palestinians themselves, as Hostile aggressors.
3.  The Palestinians altered the solution of the question of Palestine but solemn declarations: the first by saying that "armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" (Article 9 Charter), and second by declaring that: "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" (Article 13 Covenant).
4.  The idea that "Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is a description of a political position which is proven false by item #3 above.  Neither "Jihad" or "Armed Struggle" are a means to lasting peace.
5.  The "right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the Charter" does not include the use of terrorism and armed conflict.
6.  The restoration of "rights" is a matter of adopting a peaceful solution.  
7.  The Israelis have been in contact, and are in contact now, with the Palestinian in attempts to achieve a peaceful solution.​
What particular point are you attempting to challenge?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH, about then.
> 
> 
> 
> Tinny...
> 
> You guys (pro-Palestinian side) really and truly crack me up, when you start leaning so hard upon the use of Descriptor A or B to outline Old Palestine, and to pretend that such a verbiage ipso facto rendered Palestine a 'nation' in a Real World setting...
> 
> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...
> 
> With no identifiable holistic all-of-Old-Palestine ownership or sovereignty extant nor internationally recognized at the time of the mandate, and with no autonomous self-governance nor charter nor incorporation nor diplomatic credentials nor national standing at the time...
> 
> The use of the word 'country' may easily and rightfully and defensibly be construed as '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_'.
> 
> '_Country_' is much shorter than '_the unincorporated and unchartered and externally governed region of land known loosely and colloquially as Palestine_' - don't you think?
> 
> Your side has been trying to sell that old canard for 66 years now, and you haven't even made a dent in global public opinion, beyond the domain of Islam, in order to bring the rest of Mankind over to your viewpoint.
> 
> After 66 years, comes a time when the Grown-Ups concede that the canard just isn't sell-able.
> 
> Oh... and... by the way... the very first reference to Palestine in that document describes it merely as the '_territory_ of Palestine' formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Words don't make a country... money and brains and balls make a country... along with enough force and victories on the battlefield to win and sustain a new country.
> 
> The Jews were smart enough and courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.
> 
> The Palestinian Muslims were not smart enough nor courageous enough to make their National Home within the boundaries of Old Palestine, as was intended all along.
> 
> Had the Palestinian Muslims tended to their own Nation-Building rather than trying to interfere with the Other Guys, and had their Arab-Muslim neighbors not tried to interfere with the Other Guys, the Palestinians would not have been living in shitholes for the past 66 years.
> 
> But... it was their choice... and that choice had consequences... no Do-Overs allowed at this late juncture.
> 
> And all the dusted-over, rusted-over, crusted-over, molded-over Old Legal Standings and pleadings and interpretations and spin-doctoring in the world isn't going to change that now.
> 
> You're (metaphorically) swinging after the bell, and much of the rest of the world is getting a good belly-laugh over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Irrelevant. * Here is resolution 3236 in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine
> 
> 
> The General Assembly,
> 
> Having considered the question of Palestine,
> 
> Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,1/
> 
> Having also heard other statements made during the debate,
> 
> Deeply concerned that no just solution to the problem of Palestine has yet been achieved and recognizing that the problem of Palestine continues to endanger international peace and security,
> 
> Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> 3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
> 
> 4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
> 
> 5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> 6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
> 
> 7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;
> 
> 8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
> 
> 9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine needs a particular status for the Palestinians to have rights?
Click to expand...





 When ever it mentions Palestine or Palestinians if you look


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the phrase 'country' or 'nation' by itself does not ipso facto render a region or territory or parcel of land into an actual polity; in this case, a nation-state...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. Here is resolution 3236 in its entirety...
Click to expand...

No, Tinny, it's not irrelevant.

You were citing the use of the word 'country' in ancient documentation utilized in connection with the earlier British Mandate for Palestine, to create a fictitious moment in time when 'Palestine' became a nation.

I effectively countered that citation.

You cannot then jump ahead 26 years (1948 to 1974) to UN 3236 in order to define the state of affairs as that existed during the lifetime of the Mandate.

Jesus-H-Christ, Tinny, at least try to stay on the same Time-Space Continuum, eh?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rocco,



> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;



The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...


That'll only work if the arabs stop attacking Israel, and basically surrender. The only rights they have now during wartime are the prisoner of war rights.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That'll only work if the arabs stop attacking Israel, and basically surrender. The only rights they have now during wartime are the prisoner of war rights.
Click to expand...


What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...

Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...

Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The concept behind the rights of "self-determination" and "national sovereignty" are not unique to the Arab or the Arab Palestinian.  The concept is universally applicable to every cultural under the theory.  And theoretically, it is part of the "natural law" _(is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal)_ behind humanity; applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.  (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Key Features of Natural Law Theories
Natural law and divine providence
Natural law and practical rationality
The substance of the natural law view
Paradigmatic and nonparadigmatic natural law theories

Theoretical Options for Natural Law Theorists
Natural goodness
Knowledge of the basic goods
The catalog of basic goods
From the good to the right




P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The question, asks for qualities that arguably apply to the subject.  In this case, you are essentially asking:

At what point did the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" (Natural Law) as theoretical constructs of jurisprudence, based on morality and ethics apply to the Palestinian?

This goes back to the capacity of the Arab Palestinian to independently derive and comprehend what the qualities of "self-determination and sovereignty" are and mean, relative to their culture.  Quite clearly, prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab-Palestinian was not implementing any of the qualities associated with "self-determination and sovereignty."   The Sultan was the "sovereign" and there was no independent self-determination being exercised by the Arab Palestinian.  While there were Arab leaders exercising various forms of "sovereignty" in the greater Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions, the influence of the Court of Sheiks (Sheik Sabah Kuwait), or the quasi-independent tribes under the banner of Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud (House of Saud), did not have that reach in terms of political projection.  However, the Sharif and Emir of Mecca (Hussein bin Ali) did have some influence over that portion of the region.

Essential to understanding what the Arab Palestinian had, or did not have, in terms of the theoretical constructs of jurisprudence forming the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" rest with the understanding that the Arab-Palestinian was under the influence of either:

The Sultan
The Sharif and Emir of Mecca
The Court of Sheiks
The House of Saud

Even later --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), originally formed by the Mandatory, was under the influence other than the Arab Palestinian.  However, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin al-Husseini) became prominent as a leader, it was he that gradually began to introduce the idea of independence for Palestine as an Arab state. The Grand Mufti, himself a former member of the Ottoman Armed Forces during WWI, actively opposed Zionism, and the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

*(ANSWER)*

While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders _(Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali)_ was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" _(the Natural Law)_ for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State.  The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal _(acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz)_, but went well beyond. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That'll only work if the arabs stop attacking Israel, and basically surrender. The only rights they have now during wartime are the prisoner of war rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...
> 
> Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...
> 
> Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.
Click to expand...

Well, Pbel, you get full marks for being an optimist, in connection with the Palestinian cause and BDS.

BDS is going nowhere fast, and will continue in that mode for the foreseeable future.

Other than serving as a textbook baseline and negative example for how *NOT* to run an international boycott.


----------



## montelatici

The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.



In ten years, you will be saying the same thing


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> Who told you that bald-faced lie, Billy? They've owned it since the Big March.


So, according to your logic, it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland?


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that bald-faced lie, Billy? They've owned it since the Big March.
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to your logic, it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland?
Click to expand...


Poland is a sovereign country. Not even REMOTELY close of a comparison.

I wonder why you keep coming up with these idiotic comparisons that have no similarities. One would think that after you embaressed yourself by comparing thousands upon thousands of Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas for riot dispersal, that you would stop making them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...




 May 13 1948, and promptly gave them away by going to war on the Jews ILLEGALLY


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> May 13 1948, and promptly gave them away by going to war on the Jews ILLEGALLY


You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!

You get them when you're born and have them until you die.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Poland is a sovereign country. Not even REMOTELY close of a comparison.
> 
> I wonder why you keep coming up with these idiotic comparisons that have no similarities. One would think that after you embaressed yourself by comparing thousands upon thousands of Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas for riot dispersal, that you would stop making them


In both cases, you're taking land (that isn't yours) by force of arms.

So what's the difference?


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.


The separation between Afrikaaner and Native was of a racist nature.

The separation between Israeli and Palestinian is a matter of keeping apart different sides in a protracted civil war within the confines of Old Palestine.

The Boycott against South Africa worked because of post-WWII Euro-White Man's guilt over the colonizing and exploiting of the African continent over the span of a couple of centuries.

The Boycott against Israel is obliged to attempt to strong-arm a people (the Jews) who were the victims of one of the most horrific episodes of genocide in recorded history, and that within living memory, and who have been persecuted in both The Middle-East and The West for the better part of 2,000 years, and who were promised a '_national_ home' by the most recent past rulers of Old Palestine, and the most recent past global League, and who are presently engaged in the resurrection and reclamation of their (ancestral and/or spiritual) homeland, and who are merely nudging-aside a ragtag collection of 'natives' in order to complete that objective...

Natives who themselves have been engaging in acts of terror beyond the confines of Old Palestine for the past four decades or more and who have been refusing to compromise and make peace for most of the past seven decades and who have become a laughing-stock and who command very little respect on the world stage; and for whom the Arab world poured out blood and treasure intermittently for decades until donor-exhaustion set in. The Palestinians' time has come and gone.

A slightly different 'target', and a slightly different level of 'buy-in' needed in order to launch and sustain an effective Boycott.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That'll only work if the arabs stop attacking Israel, and basically surrender. The only rights they have now during wartime are the prisoner of war rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...
> 
> Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...
> 
> Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.
Click to expand...





 That artificial peace as you call it could see the destruction of the arab world if they reneged on it. First off the USA would stop all aid and then send in the troops to drive the arab armies back. The UN would issue a proclamation dismissing all arab representatives from the UN and allowing the USA to place them under arrest for war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of the un charter

 What 15 UN upwardly spiralling columns of warm air would they be then ?

 But if you mean the UN conventions then abbas has just singed his own death warrant as this means they cant use terror tactics anymore, or BLOOD LIBELS and MUST engage in peace talks or face UN sanctions

 The UN will tell the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a settlement and to stop making childish demands before they will


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.






 One big difference that was instituted by the UN and enforced by the member states with weapons of war. The BDS movement has been made illegal under racism/civil rights laws in most countries because it singles out the Jews for purely racist reasons. Too many right wing anti semitic groups have taken up the banner of BDS to attempt to legitimise their NAZI ANTI SEMITISM


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that bald-faced lie, Billy? They've owned it since the Big March.
> 
> 
> 
> So, according to your logic, it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland?
Click to expand...




 And according to your logic it was acceptable for your forefathers to ethnically cleanse the First Nation people from the land so you could post ANTISEMITIC LIES on the internet.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> That'll only work if the arabs stop attacking Israel, and basically surrender. The only rights they have now during wartime are the prisoner of war rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...
> 
> Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...
> 
> Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That artificial peace as you call it could see the destruction of the arab world if they reneged on it. First off the USA would stop all aid and then send in the troops to drive the arab armies back. The UN would issue a proclamation dismissing all arab representatives from the UN and allowing the USA to place them under arrest for war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of the un charter
> 
> What 15 UN upwardly spiralling columns of warm air would they be then ?
> 
> But if you mean the UN conventions then abbas has just singed his own death warrant as this means they cant use terror tactics anymore, or BLOOD LIBELS and MUST engage in peace talks or face UN sanctions
> 
> The UN will tell the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a settlement and to stop making childish demands before they will
Click to expand...


Troops will never again will be used to save Israel...Israel will dig its own grave by prolonging her greed over the wishes over the world body. The Boycott will de-fang her like South Africa.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That'll only work if the arabs stop attacking Israel, and basically surrender. The only rights they have now during wartime are the prisoner of war rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...
> 
> Besides, *Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu* and signed the fifteen UN Convections...
> 
> Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.
Click to expand...

Abbas has overseen the beat down of the Pals by the Israelis, furthering the Pals loss even more.

PS Nobody cares about what the UN says, just ask Russia.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poland is a sovereign country. Not even REMOTELY close of a comparison.
> 
> I wonder why you keep coming up with these idiotic comparisons that have no similarities. One would think that after you embaressed yourself by comparing thousands upon thousands of Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas for riot dispersal, that you would stop making them
> 
> 
> 
> In both cases, you're taking land (that isn't yours) by force of arms.
> 
> So what's the difference?
Click to expand...


Jordan attacked Israel. Poland didn't attack Germany.

And Germany didnt have a historical connection to Poland.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...
> 
> Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...
> 
> Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That artificial peace as you call it could see the destruction of the arab world if they reneged on it. First off the USA would stop all aid and then send in the troops to drive the arab armies back. The UN would issue a proclamation dismissing all arab representatives from the UN and allowing the USA to place them under arrest for war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of the un charter
> 
> What 15 UN upwardly spiralling columns of warm air would they be then ?
> 
> But if you mean the UN conventions then abbas has just singed his own death warrant as this means they cant use terror tactics anymore, or BLOOD LIBELS and MUST engage in peace talks or face UN sanctions
> 
> The UN will tell the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a settlement and to stop making childish demands before they will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troops will never again will be used to save Israel...Israel will dig its own grave by prolonging her greed over the wishes over the world body. The Boycott will de-fang her like South Africa.
Click to expand...


Well, everyone is allowed to dream, right?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ten years, you will be saying the same thing
Click to expand...


Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ten years, you will be saying the same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.
Click to expand...


Oh, I wouldn't count on that since the Israeli Orthodox certainly have a lot of babies. and all those millions of Arabs who call themselves refugees who weren't even born in the area wouldn't be allowed to become citizens of Israel..  Maybe the West Bank and Gaza will have to worry about their own population growing by leaps and bounds and that wouldn't be the problem of Israel.  Perhaps Haniya can teach them about birth control.  I remember about the time of the last Intifada where there was an interview of some of the people in either the West Bank or Gaza.  A Muslim woman who was pregnant with her tenth child was wondering how she was going to be able to feed it.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In ten years, you will be saying the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I wouldn't count on that since the Israeli Orthodox certainly have a lot of babies. and all those millions of Arabs who call themselves refugees who weren't even born in the area wouldn't be allowed to become citizens of Israel..  Maybe the West Bank and Gaza will have to worry about their own population growing by leaps and bounds and that wouldn't be the problem of Israel.  Perhaps Haniya can teach them about birth control.  I remember about the time of the last Intifada where there was an interview of some of the people in either the West Bank or Gaza.  A Muslim woman who was pregnant with her tenth child was wondering how she was going to be able to feed it.
Click to expand...


From another forum and by far the majority opinion on that forum (it is a European forum):

*"I have no idea, but there is a time limit for the Jews of Israel. The subjugation of the non-Jews by the Jews is no more pleasant than the subjugation of the non-Alawites by the Alawites and has a sell by date."*

Although this was on a Syria thread, I found this person to be succinct.  Essentially, once the Jews are ruling over noticeable majority of non-Jews, even the U.S. will have limit its support of Israel if the non-Jews are withheld equal rights, citizenship etc.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I wouldn't count on that since the Israeli Orthodox certainly have a lot of babies. and all those millions of Arabs who call themselves refugees who weren't even born in the area wouldn't be allowed to become citizens of Israel..  Maybe the West Bank and Gaza will have to worry about their own population growing by leaps and bounds and that wouldn't be the problem of Israel.  Perhaps Haniya can teach them about birth control.  I remember about the time of the last Intifada where there was an interview of some of the people in either the West Bank or Gaza.  A Muslim woman who was pregnant with her tenth child was wondering how she was going to be able to feed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From another forum and by far the majority opinion on that forum (it is a European forum):
> 
> *"I have no idea, but there is a time limit for the Jews of Israel. The subjugation of the non-Jews by the Jews is no more pleasant than the subjugation of the non-Alawites by the Alawites and has a sell by date."*
> 
> Although this was on a Syria thread, I found this person to be succinct.  Essentially, once the Jews are ruling over noticeable majority of non-Jews, even the U.S. will have limit its support of Israel if the non-Jews are withheld equal rights, citizenship etc.
Click to expand...


It is not surprising that there are Muslims like you, Haniya, and your fellow travelers who would like to see Israel destroyed.  The Arabs in Israel have the same rights as the Jews in Israel; we can't say the same about the minorities in Muslim countries, can we, Haniya?

Hmm, looks like those Muslim gals in the boiler room are busy demonizing Israel all over the Internet in various forums.  It's a shame that Haniya and the other gals in the boiler room couldn't go over and tell the Palestinians to make nice instead of trying to destroy Israel and then they can establish their own state and give all their citizens equal rights just like the Jews give their Arab citizens..


----------



## toastman

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I wouldn't count on that since the Israeli Orthodox certainly have a lot of babies. and all those millions of Arabs who call themselves refugees who weren't even born in the area wouldn't be allowed to become citizens of Israel..  Maybe the West Bank and Gaza will have to worry about their own population growing by leaps and bounds and that wouldn't be the problem of Israel.  Perhaps Haniya can teach them about birth control.  I remember about the time of the last Intifada where there was an interview of some of the people in either the West Bank or Gaza.  A Muslim woman who was pregnant with her tenth child was wondering how she was going to be able to feed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From another forum and by far the majority opinion on that forum (it is a European forum):
> 
> *"I have no idea, but there is a time limit for the Jews of Israel. The subjugation of the non-Jews by the Jews is no more pleasant than the subjugation of the non-Alawites by the Alawites and has a sell by date."*
> 
> Although this was on a Syria thread, I found this person to be succinct.  Essentially, once the Jews are ruling over noticeable majority of non-Jews, even the U.S. will have limit its support of Israel if the non-Jews are withheld equal rights, citizenship etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not surprising that there are Muslims like you, Haniya, and your fellow travelers who would like to see Israel destroyed.  The Arabs in Israel have the same rights as the Jews in Israel; we can't say the same about the minorities in Muslim countries, can we, Haniya?
> 
> Hmm, looks like those Muslim gals in the boiler room are busy demonizing Israel all over the Internet in various forums.  It's a shame that Haniya and the other gals in the boiler room couldn't go over and tell the Palestinians to make nice instead of trying to destroy Israel and then they can establish their own state and give all their citizens equal rights just like the Jews give their Arab citizens..
Click to expand...


These Pali supporters sure do like to repeat the same drivel over and over about how Israel wont last or how Israel will be destroyed.

Just remember Sally, in 20 years from now, people like monti will be spewing the same crap!


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Jordan attacked Israel.


The war started when Israel sent its tanks into Egypt, not Jordan.

BTW, Israel is not occupying Jordan.

Which makes your argument even more stupid.



toastman said:


> Poland didn't attack Germany.


And the Palestinian's didn't attack Israel.



toastman said:


> And Germany didnt have a historical connection to Poland.


Not if you ask the Germans.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan attacked Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> The war started when Israel sent its tanks into Egypt, not Jordan.
> 
> BTW, Israel is not occupying Jordan.
> 
> Which makes your argument even more stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poland didn't attack Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Palestinian's didn't attack Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Germany didnt have a historical connection to Poland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you ask the Germans.
Click to expand...


Again, Jordan attacked Israel first, not the other way around. We're not talking about how the war started moron (it started when Egypt made threats and closed the Straits of Tiran). I was talking about how the West Bank came to be 'occupied' , try to keep up if you can.


'BTW Israel is not occupying Jordan'

Wow, I knew you were dumb, but wow. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, but I never said Israel was occupying Jordan, which makes your comment stupid. Jordan joined the war even though Israel warned the not to.

Another failure of a post by Billo the Retard.


----------



## aris2chat

Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them.  But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?
Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The concept behind the rights of "self-determination" and "national sovereignty" are not unique to the Arab or the Arab Palestinian.  The concept is universally applicable to every cultural under the theory.  And theoretically, it is part of the "natural law" _(is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal)_ behind humanity; applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.  (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> Key Features of Natural Law Theories
> Natural law and divine providence
> Natural law and practical rationality
> The substance of the natural law view
> Paradigmatic and nonparadigmatic natural law theories
> 
> Theoretical Options for Natural Law Theorists
> Natural goodness
> Knowledge of the basic goods
> The catalog of basic goods
> From the good to the right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question, asks for qualities that arguably apply to the subject.  In this case, you are essentially asking:
> 
> At what point did the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" (Natural Law) as theoretical constructs of jurisprudence, based on morality and ethics apply to the Palestinian?
> 
> This goes back to the capacity of the Arab Palestinian to independently derive and comprehend what the qualities of "self-determination and sovereignty" are and mean, relative to their culture.  Quite clearly, prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab-Palestinian was not implementing any of the qualities associated with "self-determination and sovereignty."   The Sultan was the "sovereign" and there was no independent self-determination being exercised by the Arab Palestinian.  While there were Arab leaders exercising various forms of "sovereignty" in the greater Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions, the influence of the Court of Sheiks (Sheik Sabah Kuwait), or the quasi-independent tribes under the banner of Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud (House of Saud), did not have that reach in terms of political projection.  However, the Sharif and Emir of Mecca (Hussein bin Ali) did have some influence over that portion of the region.
> 
> Essential to understanding what the Arab Palestinian had, or did not have, in terms of the theoretical constructs of jurisprudence forming the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" rest with the understanding that the Arab-Palestinian was under the influence of either:
> 
> The Sultan
> The Sharif and Emir of Mecca
> The Court of Sheiks
> The House of Saud
> 
> Even later --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), originally formed by the Mandatory, was under the influence other than the Arab Palestinian.  However, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin al-Husseini) became prominent as a leader, it was he that gradually began to introduce the idea of independence for Palestine as an Arab state. The Grand Mufti, himself a former member of the Ottoman Armed Forces during WWI, actively opposed Zionism, and the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders _(Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali)_ was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" _(the Natural Law)_ for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State.  The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal _(acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz)_, but went well beyond.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poland is a sovereign country. Not even REMOTELY close of a comparison.
> 
> I wonder why you keep coming up with these idiotic comparisons that have no similarities. One would think that after you embaressed yourself by comparing thousands upon thousands of Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas for riot dispersal, that you would stop making them
> 
> 
> 
> In both cases, you're taking land (that isn't yours) by force of arms.
> 
> So what's the difference?
Click to expand...


Bill, when are you giving your land back to the indians? And Texas back to Mexico?


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Again, Jordan attacked Israel first, not the other way around.


Bullshit!

Not long after November 1966...



> _...*the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank*. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. Between 14 and 21 Jordanian soldiers were killed in the operation and 37 more were wounded. Overall, 18 were killed, 130 wounded, while 125 houses, the school, and the clinic were destroyed in the attack. Israel's attack was deplored by the Security Council...._


Try again, maybe your luck will change?



toastman said:


> We're not talking about how the war started moron (it started when Egypt made threats and closed the Straits of Tiran).


Locker room chest thumping is not an "attack".

An attack is more like trying to provoke the Syrian's into an armed response.



> _During 1965&#8211;7, *Israel's armed forces staged numerous provocations along the Israeli&#8211;Syrian border area. *The pattern was of action and reaction. Israeli armoured tractors, often guarded by police, would start to plow in a disputed area of the DMZ. From its high ground positions, Syria would fire at those advancing, and, adopting a new policy, retaliated for Israeli fire at Syrian military positions by firing on civilian settlements in the Hula Valley. Israel would retaliate with raids on Syrian positions, including the use of air power. U.N. officials blamed both Israel and Syria for destabilizing the borders. This escalation led the Syrians and the Soviets to believe Israel was planning to overthrow the Syrian regime using military force. On April 7, 1967, a serious incident broke out between Israel and Syria, after Israel had begun to cultivate more westerly tracts in the Ha'on sector of the demilitarized zone. *Israel took military action against Syria*, and eventually both sides employed artillery, tanks, and mortars. During this clash Israeli airstrikes were launched a few miles from Damascus. Israel bombed both Syrian border villages and military targets. _


Moesha Dayan was right.

Israel started 80% of the wars its been in.



toastman said:


> I was talking about how the West Bank came to be 'occupied' , try to keep up if you can.


You're funny!

You weren't talking about how the '67 war was started, but was talking about how the West Bank came to be occupied, as a result of the '67 war. So you're saying the two are completely separate, un-related issues?

Now that's a WOW!



toastman said:


> Wow, I knew you were dumb, but wow. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, but I never said Israel was occupying Jordan, which makes your comment stupid. Jordan joined the war even though Israel warned the not to.


You wanna talk about "dumb"?

If Jordan "joined the war", then it's logical to assume they were not part of the war prior to that "joining".  And if they weren't part of the war prior to that "joining", then they couldn't have possibly "started" that war with an attack on Israel. 

It's not possible to join a war you've already started, but that's what you're claiming.

_Talk about dumb..._



toastman said:


> Another failure of a post by Billo the Retard.


Hey, it's not my fault you can't prove what you claim.


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> Bill, when are you giving your land back to the indians?


As soon as their casino's reimburse me for my gambling losses.



MrMax said:


> And Texas back to Mexico?


Oh, I'd love that!

That couldn't happen any sooner.

Fuck Texas!


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, when are you giving your land back to the indians?
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as their casino's reimburse me for my gambling losses.
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Texas back to Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'd love that!
> 
> That couldn't happen any sooner.
> 
> Fuck Texas!
Click to expand...


You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...


----------



## Billo_Really

aris2chat said:


> Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them.  But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?


Israel did something wrong by launching commando raids into Syria and Jordan prior to that in order to provoke the war.



aris2chat said:


> Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?


I'd have to care enough to be upset.  Quite frankly, I don't care about Egypt, Syria or Israel.

The only thing I'm upset about regarding that war, is the USS Liberty.


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...


Before you use that "name", remember this...

_*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> May 13 1948, and promptly gave them away by going to war on the Jews ILLEGALLY
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!
> 
> You get them when you're born and have them until you die.
Click to expand...




 WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you rationalize your hypocrisy with a date? WoW! That's a steaming huge load of ...


----------



## pbel

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
Click to expand...


Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.
Click to expand...


So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> May 13 1948, and promptly gave them away by going to war on the Jews ILLEGALLY
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!
> 
> You get them when you're born and have them until you die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians started the 1948 war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?
Click to expand...


Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...

Do you get it?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poland is a sovereign country. Not even REMOTELY close of a comparison.
> 
> I wonder why you keep coming up with these idiotic comparisons that have no similarities. One would think that after you embaressed yourself by comparing thousands upon thousands of Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas for riot dispersal, that you would stop making them
> 
> 
> 
> In both cases, you're taking land (that isn't yours) by force of arms.
> 
> So what's the difference?
Click to expand...




 The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place. Lets take Poland that stole German land after WW1 and evicted the German land owners by force. You know that right of return well Germany implemented it and took back all the stolen land.

 Now look at Palestine and who owned the land prior to the arab invasion of Israel in 1948, then implement the right of return and you have Jews taking back their land.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...
> 
> Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...
> 
> Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That artificial peace as you call it could see the destruction of the arab world if they reneged on it. First off the USA would stop all aid and then send in the troops to drive the arab armies back. The UN would issue a proclamation dismissing all arab representatives from the UN and allowing the USA to place them under arrest for war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of the un charter
> 
> What 15 UN upwardly spiralling columns of warm air would they be then ?
> 
> But if you mean the UN conventions then abbas has just singed his own death warrant as this means they cant use terror tactics anymore, or BLOOD LIBELS and MUST engage in peace talks or face UN sanctions
> 
> The UN will tell the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a settlement and to stop making childish demands before they will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troops will never again will be used to save Israel...Israel will dig its own grave by prolonging her greed over the wishes over the world body. The Boycott will de-fang her like South Africa.
Click to expand...




 Don't you bother reading what is posted, the BDS movement has been hijacked by right wing and left wing extremist groups and it has became a racist event. Troops other than Israeli have never been used to save Israel, it is capable of doing its own fighting. The Palestinians have already dug their graves and will soon be thrown in them by their thousands because of their greed in wanting it all.  The world is slowly coming to see just how violent the muslims are and how they will use that violence to take over the world. Why do you think so many European nations are passing new laws to curtail their takeovers.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate.  BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ten years, you will be saying the same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.
Click to expand...





 Not if they implement contraception laws to curb the rising birth rate. When it hits the people in their pockets and they cant afford to feed their children then we will see. No government is empowered to allow its citizens to overpopulate and cause starvation and death. So in 10 years expect to see families limited to 3 children with severe monetary losses if they exceed this limit. Even eviction from the country in the worse cases.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I wouldn't count on that since the Israeli Orthodox certainly have a lot of babies. and all those millions of Arabs who call themselves refugees who weren't even born in the area wouldn't be allowed to become citizens of Israel..  Maybe the West Bank and Gaza will have to worry about their own population growing by leaps and bounds and that wouldn't be the problem of Israel.  Perhaps Haniya can teach them about birth control.  I remember about the time of the last Intifada where there was an interview of some of the people in either the West Bank or Gaza.  A Muslim woman who was pregnant with her tenth child was wondering how she was going to be able to feed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From another forum and by far the majority opinion on that forum (it is a European forum):
> 
> *"I have no idea, but there is a time limit for the Jews of Israel. The subjugation of the non-Jews by the Jews is no more pleasant than the subjugation of the non-Alawites by the Alawites and has a sell by date."*
> 
> Although this was on a Syria thread, I found this person to be succinct.  Essentially, once the Jews are ruling over noticeable majority of non-Jews, even the U.S. will have limit its support of Israel if the non-Jews are withheld equal rights, citizenship etc.
Click to expand...





Does not make it reality as seen in China were the government restricted the birth rate. Once that is implemented and enforced you will se a sharp decline in the numbers of non Jews as they leave the country for good.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan attacked Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> The war started when Israel sent its tanks into Egypt, not Jordan.
> 
> BTW, Israel is not occupying Jordan.
> 
> Which makes your argument even more stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poland didn't attack Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Palestinian's didn't attack Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Germany didnt have a historical connection to Poland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you ask the Germans.
Click to expand...






 The war started when Egypt blocked the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which was seen as a declaration of war. Then they massed their troops on the Israeli border ready for an all out attack on Israel.

 Israel originally occupied Jordanian land as a defensive measure until Jordan relinquished all claims to the land

 They did as part of the arab armies invasion in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They have also attacked Israel through terrorism and bombings since 1948.

Yes Poland stole German land as part of the reparations after WW1 and evicted by force the German land owners.   
 The details are in the treaties made in the run up to the mandate of Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The concept behind the rights of "self-determination" and "national sovereignty" are not unique to the Arab or the Arab Palestinian.  The concept is universally applicable to every cultural under the theory.  And theoretically, it is part of the "natural law" _(is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal)_ behind humanity; applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.  (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> Key Features of Natural Law Theories
> Natural law and divine providence
> Natural law and practical rationality
> The substance of the natural law view
> Paradigmatic and nonparadigmatic natural law theories
> 
> Theoretical Options for Natural Law Theorists
> Natural goodness
> Knowledge of the basic goods
> The catalog of basic goods
> From the good to the right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question, asks for qualities that arguably apply to the subject.  In this case, you are essentially asking:
> 
> At what point did the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" (Natural Law) as theoretical constructs of jurisprudence, based on morality and ethics apply to the Palestinian?
> 
> This goes back to the capacity of the Arab Palestinian to independently derive and comprehend what the qualities of "self-determination and sovereignty" are and mean, relative to their culture.  Quite clearly, prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab-Palestinian was not implementing any of the qualities associated with "self-determination and sovereignty."   The Sultan was the "sovereign" and there was no independent self-determination being exercised by the Arab Palestinian.  While there were Arab leaders exercising various forms of "sovereignty" in the greater Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions, the influence of the Court of Sheiks (Sheik Sabah Kuwait), or the quasi-independent tribes under the banner of Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud (House of Saud), did not have that reach in terms of political projection.  However, the Sharif and Emir of Mecca (Hussein bin Ali) did have some influence over that portion of the region.
> 
> Essential to understanding what the Arab Palestinian had, or did not have, in terms of the theoretical constructs of jurisprudence forming the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" rest with the understanding that the Arab-Palestinian was under the influence of either:
> 
> The Sultan
> The Sharif and Emir of Mecca
> The Court of Sheiks
> The House of Saud
> 
> Even later --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), originally formed by the Mandatory, was under the influence other than the Arab Palestinian.  However, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin al-Husseini) became prominent as a leader, it was he that gradually began to introduce the idea of independence for Palestine as an Arab state. The Grand Mufti, himself a former member of the Ottoman Armed Forces during WWI, actively opposed Zionism, and the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders _(Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali)_ was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" _(the Natural Law)_ for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State.  The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal _(acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz)_, but went well beyond.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
Click to expand...





 What question as you did not make one, only an observation from a 1974 document that did not apply in 1947


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, when are you giving your land back to the indians?
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as their casino's reimburse me for my gambling losses.
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Texas back to Mexico?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'd love that!
> 
> That couldn't happen any sooner.
> 
> Fuck Texas!
Click to expand...





 They did not force you to go in and gamble, that was your decision and so you must bear the costs.
 So when can we expect to see a naked man begging the Indian tribes forgiveness for all the harm his forebears did to them in their greed for land.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them.  But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did something wrong by launching commando raids into Syria and Jordan prior to that in order to provoke the war.
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to care enough to be upset.  Quite frankly, I don't care about Egypt, Syria or Israel.
> 
> The only thing I'm upset about regarding that war, is the USS Liberty.
Click to expand...





 The converted WW2 freighter that had hundreds just like it made all over the world, the same design that Egypt had as many of her Naval vessels. So if the US used model T fords and so did the Egyptians  how could you tell one from another flying at 600mph +


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
Click to expand...





 Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.
Click to expand...




 Not if laws are enacted similar to the ones in the surrounding Islamic nations, or a cap placed on the birth rate.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!
> 
> You get them when you're born and have them until you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians started the 1948 war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.
Click to expand...





 If you want to be stupid they started the war in 632 C.E. when the false prophet attacked the Jewish tribe at medina and wiped them out.

 But as you have been told the Jews were invited over by the lands legal owners to colonise Palestine and make it fruitful again. The Palestinians were just itinerant farm workers from the surrounding countries attracted by the thought of work. The whole world was in a major recession so people were travelling looking for work. The Palestinians started the war when along with the arab armies they invaded Israel


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...
> 
> Do you get it?
Click to expand...



 Try again as the links you have provided shows that it happened after the end of WW1


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...
> 
> Do you get it?
Click to expand...


It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know. 

PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.

PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.
Click to expand...


That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.


----------



## Kondor3

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...
> 
> Do you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.
> 
> PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.
> 
> PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.
Click to expand...


Yes, we've all seen the argument...

Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...

Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...

"And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.

We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.

We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.

You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.

But not until we've gotten our share.

Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...
> 
> Do you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.
> 
> PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.
> 
> PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we've all seen the argument...
> 
> Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...
> 
> Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...
> 
> "And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.
> 
> We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.
> 
> We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.
> 
> You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.
> 
> After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.
> 
> But not until we've gotten our share.
> 
> Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."
Click to expand...


I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.

"We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.

We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?

We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."

or

"Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Jordan attacked Israel first, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Not long after November 1966...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _...*the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank*. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. Between 14 and 21 Jordanian soldiers were killed in the operation and 37 more were wounded. Overall, 18 were killed, 130 wounded, while 125 houses, the school, and the clinic were destroyed in the attack. Israel's attack was deplored by the Security Council...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, maybe your luck will change?
> 
> Locker room chest thumping is not an "attack".
> 
> An attack is more like trying to provoke the Syrian's into an armed response.
> 
> Moesha Dayan was right.
> 
> Israel started 80% of the wars its been in.
> 
> You're funny!
> 
> You weren't talking about how the '67 war was started, but was talking about how the West Bank came to be occupied, as a result of the '67 war. So you're saying the two are completely separate, un-related issues?
> 
> Now that's a WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I knew you were dumb, but wow. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, but I never said Israel was occupying Jordan, which makes your comment stupid. Jordan joined the war even though Israel warned the not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna talk about "dumb"?
> 
> If Jordan "joined the war", then it's logical to assume they were not part of the war prior to that "joining".  And if they weren't part of the war prior to that "joining", then they couldn't have possibly "started" that war with an attack on Israel.
> 
> It's not possible to join a war you've already started, but that's what you're claiming.
> 
> _Talk about dumb..._
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another failure of a post by Billo the Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, it's not my fault you can't prove what you claim.
Click to expand...


More failure from Billo the lying propagandist!
All you showed me was a couple of skirmishes between Jordan and Israel BEFORE the war started in June. LOL . Nice try. Would you like to try again??

As for you last paragraph and statement, you made absolutely no sense. Jordan joined the war that was between Israel and Egypt . It had nothing to do with Jordan. You always complain that 'Israel attacked first', well Jordqn attacked Israel in this case. Such a simple concept, yet you can't even comprehend it. 
Lol that was fun!


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them.  But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did something wrong by launching commando raids into Syria and Jordan prior to that in order to provoke the war.
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to care enough to be upset.  Quite frankly, I don't care about Egypt, Syria or Israel.
> 
> The only thing I'm upset about regarding that war, is the USS Liberty.
Click to expand...


Egypt allowing dozens of attack against Israel since 1965, is not enough provocation to act?  Attack from the Golan in 1966 or 1967 is not provocation?

How many times should Israel be attacked before they should take action?  Each attack from Egypt or Syria was an act of war.

Why should Israel have waited till it was invaded from three sides?  War had already been declared.  Plans of the arab attack had been uncovered.  Troops had amassed.
What should Israel have waited for?  Their actions are what saved Israel.  Every decade Israel was forced into war.  Why should the arabs have the advantage when Israel had already been under attack from Egypt and Syria?


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them.  But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did something wrong by launching commando raids into Syria and Jordan prior to that in order to provoke the war.
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to care enough to be upset.  Quite frankly, I don't care about Egypt, Syria or Israel.
> 
> The only thing I'm upset about regarding that war, is the USS Liberty.
Click to expand...


Israel have been attacked from Egypt and the Golan for years.

As for the Liberty, there was plenty of fault on both sides.  USN denied they had a ship in that area when asked.  They were in a war zone.  They did not respond when hailed on the radio.  Against orders the Liberty fire on the torpedo boat.  Every investigation determined it was a mistake.  Israel paid for damages to the Liberty.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
Click to expand...


Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
Click to expand...


Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.  

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
Click to expand...


The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
Click to expand...

Hang in there, Tinmore. We'll get that land back for the rightful owners.  Uh, who are the rightful owners if not the Israelis?


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
Click to expand...


Naturally Haniya thinks it is quite OK that the Muslims left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries  and took over there.  Hmm, I wonder why the Muslims in southern Thailand are so busy killing the Buddhists there for years.  Do they really have to have that part of Thailand for their own?  Couldn't they just get along with the Buddhists living there?  You can say that same thing about what has happened in the Philippines, a  Catholic country, with regard to the Muslim there.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
Click to expand...


The Vatican, not the pope, has a non voting seat at the UN.  Though right now it may wish it was not a member.

Jews like arab immigrated.  Under the mandate two years living there was all that was required.  Jews had as much right to a jewish nation.  They bought, built, developed, cultivated, created jobs, all part of paring for statehood.

Jews were kicked out of arab state and were incorporated into the Israeli population.
Jews came from all around the world, not just europe.  After the holocaust, European jews that had been in nazi camps needed a homeland.  Even back in the early 1800 the Ottoman encouraged the jews to buy land and settle in what later became the british mandate.

Jews did not simply arrive from europe and steal land.  Israel was where they were from.
They were returning home.  They came to care for their homeland.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
Click to expand...


When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add. 
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine. 
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
> Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
> In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.
Click to expand...


Of course that is not true.


----------



## montelatici

i Jews like arab immigrated.

Europeans immigrated.  The local population are/were predominately the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  They were once Jews, Samaritans etc. Most converted to Christianity when Constantine became a Christian and Christianity became the state religion of the (Eastern) Roman Empire.  After the Arab conquests most converted to Islam.  

"Arab", as you know, is a cultural and linguistic denomination, not a racial or ethnic denomination. The only ethnic/racial Arabs are the people from the Arabian peninsula.   A Tunisian is culturally an Arab, but racially and ethnically he/she is Berber, Phoenician, etc.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
> Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
> In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
Click to expand...


Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
> Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
> In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
Click to expand...


It was the mandate's responsibility to break up what was the Ottoman empire into nations.  Breaking up simply by tribes or sanjuks was too small and unable to support themselves.  The mandate was the rule in the mandate.  Both the French and British tried to break up into nations that could have an economy that would support the needs of a state.

UN wanted to create a state for the arab palestinians, but the arab states refused.  With the end of the Ottoman, it was the right and responsibility of the mandates and the arabs to form nations.


----------



## Hossfly

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
> Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
> In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the mandate's responsibility to break up what was the Ottoman empire into nations.  Breaking up simply by tribes or sanjuks was too small and unable to support themselves.  The mandate was the rule in the mandate.  Both the French and British tried to break up into nations that could have an economy that would support the needs of a state.
> 
> UN wanted to create a state for the arab palestinians, but the arab states refused.  With the end of the Ottoman, it was the right and responsibility of the mandates and the arabs to form nations.
Click to expand...

The Palestinian faction, led by Tinmore, refuse to believe the Arabs refused. That's where the problem lies. They still have pipe dreams.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
> Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
> In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants.  From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel. 

Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia.  Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders _(Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali)_ was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" _(the Natural Law)_ for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State.  The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal _(acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz)_, but went well beyond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words _(but what it is)_; and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it _(if you wish)_ in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.  

Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.  

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders _(Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali)_ was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" _(the Natural Law)_ for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State.  The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal _(acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz)_, but went well beyond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words (but what it is); and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it (if you wish) in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, and could not successfully implement it.
> 
> Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, create a hostile environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


* And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.*

Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants.  From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia.  Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.
Click to expand...


If you have a problem with giving african nations their independence, the desolation of the empires, take it to the Africa forum.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants.  From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia.  Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with giving african nations their independence, the desolation of the empires, take it to the Africa forum.
Click to expand...


You have a reading comprehension issue. I see.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders _(Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali)_ was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" _(the Natural Law)_ for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State.  The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal _(acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz)_, but went well beyond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words _(but what it is)_; and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it _(if you wish)_ in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.
> 
> Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are dancing around the question.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
Click to expand...


The problem is that you're a hypocrite. It's ok for you to make up some arbitrary rule to keep the land you took off the indians by force, but it's not ok for others to keep the land they won in a war when they were attacked.

Keep arguing about meaningless pieces of paper, I know it makes you feel better. Do you need someone to come and hold your hand too?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you use that "name", remember this...
> 
> _*..."Conquer by Conquest" *_was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
Click to expand...





 But not the arab muslim migrants that did not own any land. The Jews were to be the recipients of what is today Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Agreed with the arab leaders at the time, until the grand mufti decided to stick his nose in.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.
> 
> PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.
> 
> PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've all seen the argument...
> 
> Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...
> 
> Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...
> 
> "And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.
> 
> We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.
> 
> We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.
> 
> You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.
> 
> After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.
> 
> But not until we've gotten our share.
> 
> Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.
> 
> "We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.
> 
> We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?
> 
> We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."
> 
> or
> 
> "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."
Click to expand...





 Now look at how racist and corrupt the country is under black rule. It is about on a par with most Islamic nations for racism, religious intolerance and brutality. So it seems that the blacks and muslims are not yet ready to be civilised.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've all seen the argument...
> 
> Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...
> 
> Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...
> 
> "And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.
> 
> We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.
> 
> We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.
> 
> You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.
> 
> After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.
> 
> But not until we've gotten our share.
> 
> Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.
> 
> "We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.
> 
> We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?
> 
> We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."
> 
> or
> 
> "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at how racist and corrupt the country is under black rule. It is about on a par with most Islamic nations for racism, religious intolerance and brutality. So it seems that the blacks and muslims are not yet ready to be civilised.
Click to expand...


Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist.  You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
Click to expand...





 Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews. 
 So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.

 How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
Click to expand...




 WRONG as you have been shown time and time again. The land was given to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Israel by the legal land owners of the time.

 Unless you have a link to an International treaty signed by the rulers of Palestine denying the mandate the right to govern the land and people.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words _(but what it is)_; and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it _(if you wish)_ in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.
> 
> Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
Click to expand...

And you, Tinmore are not seeing the answer you want, which doesn't exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
> Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation.  Even those who had only been there a few years.  People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land.  After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up.  Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. *The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews. *
> So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.
> 
> How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link that says that?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. *The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews. *
> So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.
> 
> How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. I ate it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.
> 
> The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
> Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
> In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
Click to expand...





 So then who held the legal right to the land under International law of that time. The mandate was ipso fact the legal land owner and the arab leaders had agreed to the partitioning of the land for the help given to the allies during WW1. It was the events of WW2 that led to the grand mufti stirring up trouble and telling the other arab leaders that the land was arab muslim and should never be given to the Jews.

 No doubt you will say that this is not true as well ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, montelatici, _et al,_

Certainly NOT!



P F Tinmore said:


> You are dancing around the question.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them.  But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.

I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings.  I can give you the coordinates _(for a given date and time)_.  But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope _(the capability)_ means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​
Just saying the words, means nothing.  The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together. 

The Arab Palestinian had all the capability _(and more)_ it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State.  But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all.  They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation.  That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.

That is foolish.  Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers.  And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> Certainly NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them.  But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.
> 
> I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings.  I can give you the coordinates _(for a given date and time)_.  But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope _(the capability)_ means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​
> Just saying the words, means nothing.  The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had all the capability _(and more)_ it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State.  But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all.  They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation.  That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.
> 
> That is foolish.  Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers.  And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are still dancing.



> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;



The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. *The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews. *
> So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.
> 
> How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
Click to expand...


Learn Hebrew, find a job, work for several years....it is not a matter of just wanting to become an Israeli.  You can be denied.  But yes, non-jews, not involved in any terrorism, can become Israelis.

Any country can deny an application for citizenship.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> i Jews like arab immigrated.
> 
> Europeans immigrated.  The local population are/were predominately the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  They were once Jews, Samaritans etc. Most converted to Christianity when Constantine became a Christian and Christianity became the state religion of the (Eastern) Roman Empire.  After the Arab conquests most converted to Islam.
> 
> "Arab", as you know, is a cultural and linguistic denomination, not a racial or ethnic denomination. The only ethnic/racial Arabs are the people from the Arabian peninsula.   A Tunisian is culturally an Arab, but racially and ethnically he/she is Berber, Phoenician, etc.





According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.

 1. . 7th century. Palestine is under Bizantium rule. The majority of the population are Christians and Jews. Muslims are not found, as islam only appeared a couple of years ago. Arabs from the Arabic Desert invade Palestine in 634. The number of the troops fluctuated between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. After the conquest, the peasants, traders, women , craftsmen moved from Arabia Desert to the new conquered territories. However, Christians and Jews remain the absolute majority until the 1012, when Caliph Al Hakim in his edict orders the stubborn Christians and Jews either "embrace Islam"- or leave his dominions. The majoriy of the Christians and Jews refused - and were expelled. New wave of the immigrants from Arabia flew to the vacant land and entered into the vacant homes of the expelled Christians and Jews. Some years later, AlHakim cancelled his edict. A part of the Jews and Christians returned to Palestine - but of course, they did not get their properties back. 

 2. Arabs did not rule long in Palestine. Just some 300 years later, the Crusaders defeated them. Some 150 years later, the Turks ended what the Crusaders started: the Arab rule in Palestine came to the end. The Turkish era in Palestine began. The Ottoman Empire ruled over Palestine almost 600 years. The Turks did not like the idea of Palestine being Arabic and put quite serious restrictions on the Arab immigration to Palestine. They prefered to bring the Muslims from Turkey and from another parts of the Ottoman Empire. The result was that in 1917, when the British troops of the Gen. Allenby entered Pallestine, there were more than 500,000 MUSLIMS - but only 5,000 Arabs. Palestine at the beginning of the XXth century was Islamic- but not Arabic. The number of the Jews at that moment was 83,000. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks left and the massive Arab immigration to Pallestine started immediately. Now, it was already ARAB peasants, workers, officials, women , craftsmen, traders who flew to Palestine where there was a lot of free land and where, besides, the new job opprtunities appeared due to the acitivities of the Brits who started to build the new railroad, the new sea port in Heifa, and the new factories all over. 

 3. British Mandate. The total number of the Arabs who immigrated to Palestine during the British Mandate was over 500,000. The total number of the Jewish immigrants at the same period was 390,000. 
 The British Administration put restrictions on the Jewish immigration to Palestine, while allowing Arabs to enter Palestine freely. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. (John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.). 

 The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.( Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 291). 

 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242). 

 The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. 

 In spite of all this, in Jerusalem the Jews were the total and absolute majority and in other big cities they were close to it. Arabs mainly lived in the agricultural areas. 

 The final population of Palestine in 1948 was 538,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims of whom more than 90% were Arab immigrants from the neighbouring Arab countries.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> Certainly NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them.  But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.
> 
> I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings.  I can give you the coordinates _(for a given date and time)_.  But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope _(the capability)_ means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​
> Just saying the words, means nothing.  The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had all the capability _(and more)_ it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State.  But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all.  They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation.  That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.
> 
> That is foolish.  Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers.  And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...


I understood how Rocco answered your question. Maybe you need to work on your comprehension issues?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants.  From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia.  Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.
Click to expand...





 What has this shite to do with the legality of the founding of Israel. Why do you constantly deflect away from the thread topic when ever you cant answer the points raised. The fact remains that the Mandate provided for the formation of 3 arab muslim states as agreed with the arab leaders and a Jewish state. The land was stateless  until the mandate came into force and created the nations. Jordan did not become a sovereign nation until 1949, until then it was governed by Britain under the mandate.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words (but what it is); and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it (if you wish) in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, and could not successfully implement it.
> 
> Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, create a hostile environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.*
> 
> Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.
Click to expand...





 There is nothing in the occupation that stops the Palestinians from starting a business and exporting the goods. The fact that many Palestinians work in the settlements shows they are capable people, just as the many who turn to building works in the settlements shows they are adaptable. There are no restrictions on the Palestinians that cant be worked around in one way or another. Have they tried talking  to the Israelis and asking them how to go about setting up a business, or do they just want to throw stones all day long


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants.  From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia.  Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with giving african nations their independence, the desolation of the empires, take it to the Africa forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a reading comprehension issue. I see.
Click to expand...






 Far from it little boy Aris is head and shoulders above you in comprehension, and is an intellectual giant compared to your futile efforts.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words _(but what it is)_; and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it _(if you wish)_ in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.
> 
> Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
Click to expand...





 NOPE you are having problems seeing that you wont get the answer you want


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> i Jews like arab immigrated.
> 
> Europeans immigrated.  The local population are/were predominately the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  They were once Jews, Samaritans etc. Most converted to Christianity when Constantine became a Christian and Christianity became the state religion of the (Eastern) Roman Empire.  After the Arab conquests most converted to Islam.
> 
> "Arab", as you know, is a cultural and linguistic denomination, not a racial or ethnic denomination. The only ethnic/racial Arabs are the people from the Arabian peninsula.   A Tunisian is culturally an Arab, but racially and ethnically he/she is Berber, Phoenician, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.
> 
> 1. . 7th century. Palestine is under Bizantium rule. The majority of the population are Christians and Jews. Muslims are not found, as islam only appeared a couple of years ago. Arabs from the Arabic Desert invade Palestine in 634. The number of the troops fluctuated between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. After the conquest, the peasants, traders, women , craftsmen moved from Arabia Desert to the new conquered territories. However, Christians and Jews remain the absolute majority until the 1012, when Caliph Al Hakim in his edict orders the stubborn Christians and Jews either "embrace Islam"- or leave his dominions. The majoriy of the Christians and Jews refused - and were expelled. New wave of the immigrants from Arabia flew to the vacant land and entered into the vacant homes of the expelled Christians and Jews. Some years later, AlHakim cancelled his edict. A part of the Jews and Christians returned to Palestine - but of course, they did not get their properties back.
> 
> 2. Arabs did not rule long in Palestine. Just some 300 years later, the Crusaders defeated them. Some 150 years later, the Turks ended what the Crusaders started: the Arab rule in Palestine came to the end. The Turkish era in Palestine began. The Ottoman Empire ruled over Palestine almost 600 years. The Turks did not like the idea of Palestine being Arabic and put quite serious restrictions on the Arab immigration to Palestine. They prefered to bring the Muslims from Turkey and from another parts of the Ottoman Empire. The result was that in 1917, when the British troops of the Gen. Allenby entered Pallestine, there were more than 500,000 MUSLIMS - but only 5,000 Arabs. Palestine at the beginning of the XXth century was Islamic- but not Arabic. The number of the Jews at that moment was 83,000. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks left and the massive Arab immigration to Pallestine started immediately. Now, it was already ARAB peasants, workers, officials, women , craftsmen, traders who flew to Palestine where there was a lot of free land and where, besides, the new job opprtunities appeared due to the acitivities of the Brits who started to build the new railroad, the new sea port in Heifa, and the new factories all over.
> 
> 3. British Mandate. The total number of the Arabs who immigrated to Palestine during the British Mandate was over 500,000. The total number of the Jewish immigrants at the same period was 390,000.
> The British Administration put restrictions on the Jewish immigration to Palestine, while allowing Arabs to enter Palestine freely. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. (John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.).
> 
> The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.( Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 291).
> 
> The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242).
> 
> The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.
> 
> In spite of all this, in Jerusalem the Jews were the total and absolute majority and in other big cities they were close to it. Arabs mainly lived in the agricultural areas.
> 
> The final population of Palestine in 1948 was 538,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims of whom more than 90% were Arab immigrants from the neighbouring Arab countries.
Click to expand...





It's all well and good to post nonsense from Zionist propaganda sites, but at least don't insult our intelligence by editing the nonsense and then not providing links.  You are one of the biggest bullshitters I have seen posting.

Now let's check out the text from source materials and not bullshit:

*AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF

PALESTINE,

during the period
1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.


AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF
PALESTINE.

I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*

of 700,000 people "*Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

*The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. "

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.
> 
> "We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.
> 
> We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?
> 
> We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."
> 
> or
> 
> "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at how racist and corrupt the country is under black rule. It is about on a par with most Islamic nations for racism, religious intolerance and brutality. So it seems that the blacks and muslims are not yet ready to be civilised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist.  You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.
Click to expand...




 Deflecting again I see when the reality is produced in front of you. The facts speak for themselves and has nothing to do with southeast D.C.  It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at how racist and corrupt the country is under black rule. It is about on a par with most Islamic nations for racism, religious intolerance and brutality. So it seems that the blacks and muslims are not yet ready to be civilised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist.  You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflecting again I see when the reality is produced in front of you. The facts speak for themselves and has nothing to do with southeast D.C.  It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.
Click to expand...


*It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.*

Well now, you are credit to the Zionists.  I am sure all your buddies that post here are in agreement with you.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.
> 
> Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. *The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews. *
> So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.
> 
> How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link that says that?
Click to expand...





 Didn't you read it when you posted the link then ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> Certainly NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them.  But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.
> 
> I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings.  I can give you the coordinates _(for a given date and time)_.  But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope _(the capability)_ means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​
> Just saying the words, means nothing.  The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had all the capability _(and more)_ it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State.  But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all.  They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation.  That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.
> 
> That is foolish.  Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers.  And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...




 When they exercised them, firstly in declaring  war on Israel in 1948, then in 1949 when they agreed to merge with Jordan.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> i Jews like arab immigrated.
> 
> Europeans immigrated.  The local population are/were predominately the same people that have always lived in Palestine.  They were once Jews, Samaritans etc. Most converted to Christianity when Constantine became a Christian and Christianity became the state religion of the (Eastern) Roman Empire.  After the Arab conquests most converted to Islam.
> 
> "Arab", as you know, is a cultural and linguistic denomination, not a racial or ethnic denomination. The only ethnic/racial Arabs are the people from the Arabian peninsula.   A Tunisian is culturally an Arab, but racially and ethnically he/she is Berber, Phoenician, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.
> 
> 1. . 7th century. Palestine is under Bizantium rule. The majority of the population are Christians and Jews. Muslims are not found, as islam only appeared a couple of years ago. Arabs from the Arabic Desert invade Palestine in 634. The number of the troops fluctuated between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. After the conquest, the peasants, traders, women , craftsmen moved from Arabia Desert to the new conquered territories. However, Christians and Jews remain the absolute majority until the 1012, when Caliph Al Hakim in his edict orders the stubborn Christians and Jews either "embrace Islam"- or leave his dominions. The majoriy of the Christians and Jews refused - and were expelled. New wave of the immigrants from Arabia flew to the vacant land and entered into the vacant homes of the expelled Christians and Jews. Some years later, AlHakim cancelled his edict. A part of the Jews and Christians returned to Palestine - but of course, they did not get their properties back.
> 
> 2. Arabs did not rule long in Palestine. Just some 300 years later, the Crusaders defeated them. Some 150 years later, the Turks ended what the Crusaders started: the Arab rule in Palestine came to the end. The Turkish era in Palestine began. The Ottoman Empire ruled over Palestine almost 600 years. The Turks did not like the idea of Palestine being Arabic and put quite serious restrictions on the Arab immigration to Palestine. They prefered to bring the Muslims from Turkey and from another parts of the Ottoman Empire. The result was that in 1917, when the British troops of the Gen. Allenby entered Pallestine, there were more than 500,000 MUSLIMS - but only 5,000 Arabs. Palestine at the beginning of the XXth century was Islamic- but not Arabic. The number of the Jews at that moment was 83,000. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks left and the massive Arab immigration to Pallestine started immediately. Now, it was already ARAB peasants, workers, officials, women , craftsmen, traders who flew to Palestine where there was a lot of free land and where, besides, the new job opprtunities appeared due to the acitivities of the Brits who started to build the new railroad, the new sea port in Heifa, and the new factories all over.
> 
> 3. British Mandate. The total number of the Arabs who immigrated to Palestine during the British Mandate was over 500,000. The total number of the Jewish immigrants at the same period was 390,000.
> The British Administration put restrictions on the Jewish immigration to Palestine, while allowing Arabs to enter Palestine freely. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. (John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.).
> 
> The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.( Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 291).
> 
> The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242).
> 
> The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.
> 
> In spite of all this, in Jerusalem the Jews were the total and absolute majority and in other big cities they were close to it. Arabs mainly lived in the agricultural areas.
> 
> The final population of Palestine in 1948 was 538,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims of whom more than 90% were Arab immigrants from the neighbouring Arab countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all well and good to post nonsense from Zionist propaganda sites, but at least don't insult our intelligence by editing the nonsense and then not providing links.  You are one of the biggest bullshitters I have seen posting.
> 
> Now let's check out the text from source materials and not bullshit:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> 
> PALESTINE,
> 
> during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.
> 
> 
> AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.
> 
> I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*
> 
> of 700,000 people "*Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. "
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
Click to expand...




 Not a Zionist site little boy but a completely unbiased one


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist.  You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflecting again I see when the reality is produced in front of you. The facts speak for themselves and has nothing to do with southeast D.C.  It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.*
> 
> Well now, you are credit to the Zionists.  I am sure all your buddies that post here are in agreement with you.
Click to expand...


You certainly have to feel sorry for those Somalis,  It is so bad for them in South Africa right now that many are going back to Somalia, a country that is also dangerous with all the fighting going on  plus the starvation where pople are dropping dead in the roads from lack of food.

Somali Refugees Say South Africa is Too Dangerous | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist.  You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflecting again I see when the reality is produced in front of you. The facts speak for themselves and has nothing to do with southeast D.C.  It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.*
> 
> Well now, you are credit to the Zionists.  I am sure all your buddies that post here are in agreement with you.
Click to expand...





 Probably not as I don't care about upsetting people when I post the truth. And anyone looking at South Africa, Rhodesia and many Islamic nations can see that the inhabitants are incapable of wiping their own backsides.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.
> 
> PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.
> 
> PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've all seen the argument...
> 
> Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...
> 
> Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...
> 
> "And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.
> 
> We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.
> 
> We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.
> 
> You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.
> 
> After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.
> 
> But not until we've gotten our share.
> 
> Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.
> 
> "We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.
> 
> We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?
> 
> We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."
> 
> or
> 
> "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."
Click to expand...

The analogy breaks-apart and shatters after even the most lightweight of scrutiny; in a dozen or more different and substantive ways.

Puh-leeze.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist.  You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflecting again I see when the reality is produced in front of you. The facts speak for themselves and has nothing to do with southeast D.C.  It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the ability for the blacks and muslims to be civilised, and the evidence shows they are not.
> 
> Well now, you are credit to the Zionists.  I am sure all your buddies that post here are in agreement with you.
Click to expand...

Horseshit.

More disingenuous attempts to put words in other peoples' mouths.

But I will go so far as to say that Islam and Self-Governance - following a model of Modern Democracy (Representative or otherwise) - do not appear to be very compatible.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've all seen the argument...
> 
> Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...
> 
> Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...
> 
> Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...
> 
> "And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.
> 
> We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.
> 
> We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.
> 
> You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.
> 
> After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.
> 
> But not until we've gotten our share.
> 
> Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.
> 
> "We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.
> 
> We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?
> 
> We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."
> 
> or
> 
> "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The analogy breaks-apart and shatters after even the most lightweight of scrutiny; in a dozen or more different and substantive ways.
> 
> Puh-leeze.
Click to expand...



Name one.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.
> 
> "We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.
> 
> We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?
> 
> We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."
> 
> or
> 
> "Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy breaks-apart and shatters after even the most lightweight of scrutiny; in a dozen or more different and substantive ways.
> 
> Puh-leeze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...

The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.

The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.
> 
> 1. . 7th century. Palestine is under Bizantium rule. The majority of the population are Christians and Jews. Muslims are not found, as islam only appeared a couple of years ago. Arabs from the Arabic Desert invade Palestine in 634. The number of the troops fluctuated between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. After the conquest, the peasants, traders, women , craftsmen moved from Arabia Desert to the new conquered territories. However, Christians and Jews remain the absolute majority until the 1012, when Caliph Al Hakim in his edict orders the stubborn Christians and Jews either "embrace Islam"- or leave his dominions. The majoriy of the Christians and Jews refused - and were expelled. New wave of the immigrants from Arabia flew to the vacant land and entered into the vacant homes of the expelled Christians and Jews. Some years later, AlHakim cancelled his edict. A part of the Jews and Christians returned to Palestine - but of course, they did not get their properties back.
> 
> 2. Arabs did not rule long in Palestine. Just some 300 years later, the Crusaders defeated them. Some 150 years later, the Turks ended what the Crusaders started: the Arab rule in Palestine came to the end. The Turkish era in Palestine began. The Ottoman Empire ruled over Palestine almost 600 years. The Turks did not like the idea of Palestine being Arabic and put quite serious restrictions on the Arab immigration to Palestine. They prefered to bring the Muslims from Turkey and from another parts of the Ottoman Empire. The result was that in 1917, when the British troops of the Gen. Allenby entered Pallestine, there were more than 500,000 MUSLIMS - but only 5,000 Arabs. Palestine at the beginning of the XXth century was Islamic- but not Arabic. The number of the Jews at that moment was 83,000. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks left and the massive Arab immigration to Pallestine started immediately. Now, it was already ARAB peasants, workers, officials, women , craftsmen, traders who flew to Palestine where there was a lot of free land and where, besides, the new job opprtunities appeared due to the acitivities of the Brits who started to build the new railroad, the new sea port in Heifa, and the new factories all over.
> 
> 3. British Mandate. The total number of the Arabs who immigrated to Palestine during the British Mandate was over 500,000. The total number of the Jewish immigrants at the same period was 390,000.
> The British Administration put restrictions on the Jewish immigration to Palestine, while allowing Arabs to enter Palestine freely. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. (John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.).
> 
> The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.( Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 291).
> 
> The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242).
> 
> The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.
> 
> In spite of all this, in Jerusalem the Jews were the total and absolute majority and in other big cities they were close to it. Arabs mainly lived in the agricultural areas.
> 
> The final population of Palestine in 1948 was 538,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims of whom more than 90% were Arab immigrants from the neighbouring Arab countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all well and good to post nonsense from Zionist propaganda sites, but at least don't insult our intelligence by editing the nonsense and then not providing links.  You are one of the biggest bullshitters I have seen posting.
> 
> Now let's check out the text from source materials and not bullshit:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> 
> PALESTINE,
> 
> during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.
> 
> 
> AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.
> 
> I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*
> 
> of 700,000 people "*Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. "
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a Zionist site little boy but a completely unbiased one
Click to expand...


Right, and I'm Santa Claus.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all well and good to post nonsense from Zionist propaganda sites, but at least don't insult our intelligence by editing the nonsense and then not providing links.  You are one of the biggest bullshitters I have seen posting.
> 
> Now let's check out the text from source materials and not bullshit:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> 
> PALESTINE,
> 
> during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.
> 
> 
> AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.
> 
> I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*
> 
> of 700,000 people "*Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. "
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a Zionist site little boy but a completely unbiased one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and I'm Santa Claus.
Click to expand...


Gee, and here I thought you were the Energizer Bunny who goes on and on and on all day long without a coffee break.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy breaks-apart and shatters after even the most lightweight of scrutiny; in a dozen or more different and substantive ways.
> 
> Puh-leeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
Click to expand...


Occupations always have security problems.

It comes with the territory.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy breaks-apart and shatters after even the most lightweight of scrutiny; in a dozen or more different and substantive ways.
> 
> Puh-leeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
Click to expand...


No, they displaced the non-Jews (Christians and Muslims) and separate them because they are non-Jews and want to maintain complete Jewish control, just as the whites wanted to maintain complete control.


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
Click to expand...


I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.
Click to expand...


Those were not settler, colonial occupations.


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
Click to expand...


And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel.  You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist -- that it is all Arab land.

By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.



P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yes, there is a point here.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
Click to expand...


Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, there is a point here.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, there is a point here.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
Click to expand...


What occupation?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...


Thats because what you said doesn't make sense. You make no sense


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...


Why thank you for admitting that your brethren were one of the largest colonizers in the world.  Such a shame, though, that they can't in this modern world allow the people they rule over to practice their religion in peace.


----------



## RoccoR

Hossfly, P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Well, there is an answer, but Paul won't like it.  The year 1983.



Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The answer was there, you just did not understand it.  Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words _(but what it is)_; and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it _(if you wish)_ in a meaningful and tangible way.   Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot.  To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.
> 
> Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction.  And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it.  The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful _(although made a valiant attempt)_.
> 
> Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination.  The real question is, can they actually make a go of it.  To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment.  They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities.  Having the right to self-determination is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.  The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you, Tinmore are not seeing the answer you want, which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*



			
				The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988 - PART IV 1984-1988 said:
			
		

> I. THIRTY-EIGHTH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE
> 
> The year 1983 was marked by the adoption by the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly of Resolution *38/58 C *of 13 December 1983.  This resolution welcomed and endorsed the call made by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine to convene the International Peace Conference on the Middle East in conformity with the following guidelines:
> 
> "(a)	*The attainment by the Palestinian people of its legitimate inalienable rights, including the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its own independent State in Palestine;*​
> *SOURCE:* Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR)





			
				General Assembly Resolution 38/58 (C) --- Question of Palestine said:
			
		

> 3.	Welcomes and endorses the call for convening an International Peace Conference on the Middle East in conformity with the following guidelines:
> 
> (a)	The attainment by the Palestinian people of its legitimate inalienable rights, including the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its own independent State in Palestine;​
> SOURCE:  A/RES/38/58(A-E) 13 December 1983



*(COMMENT)*

I actually like my answer better.  But, if for academic purposes, our friend "PF Tinmore" wants a date and explanation, then the official UN records is posted with the UN Links.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, you will be rewarded in Heaven for your persistant, bull-headed obstinance.


----------



## toastman

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why thank you for admitting that your brethren were one of the largest colonizers in the world.  Such a shame, though, that they can't in this modern world allow the people they rule over to practice their religion in peace.
Click to expand...


When he starts with his usual 'Israel has no land' jibberish, best thing is to ignore him.
He has no idea what he is talking about and no matter how many times you prove him wrong, he atill won't admit that he is.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why thank you for admitting that your brethren were one of the largest colonizers in the world.  Such a shame, though, that they can't in this modern world allow the people they rule over to practice their religion in peace.
Click to expand...


Well, that is a bit of hyperbole.  The British colonized as far away as Australia and New Zealand and at one time 2/3s of the world's population was under British rule.  I don't think the Arabs or the Ottomans even came close.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Not everyone holds the same view as you.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, there is a point here.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
Click to expand...




			
				International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People - 2014 - International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People said:
			
		

> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed annually on or around 29 November, solemnly commemorating the adoption by the Assembly, on 29 November 1947, of resolution 181 (II), which provided for the partition of Palestine into two States. The observance is held at United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna and elsewhere. The event includes special meetings at which statements on the question of Palestine are made by high-level officials of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations and representatives of civil society. The observance also includes cultural events. At other locations, various activities are organized by governmental bodies and CSOs in cooperation with United Nations information centres around the world. It is also traditionally the day that the United Nations General Assembly undertakes its annual debate on the question of Palestine. The General Assembly proclaimed 2014 the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they displaced the non-Jews (Christians and Muslims) and separate them because they are non-Jews and want to maintain complete Jewish control, just as the whites wanted to maintain complete control.
Click to expand...

Suit yourself... whatever you like... the large numbers of Muslim-Arab citizens of Israel portray a different picture... the lack of a barrier and blockade for decades after 1967 portray a different picture... for my part, the answer stands.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
Click to expand...

Yeppers...

And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...

Fun, ain't it?


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeppers...
> 
> And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...
> 
> Fun, ain't it?
Click to expand...


And, "separation" or separate development in Afrikaans is called "Apartheid".  There you go, you are starting to get it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> Well, there is an answer, but Paul won't like it. The year 1983.



You are a little late. My question stemmed from resolution 3236 of 1974. This shows that the Palestinians already had the right to self determination then.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237



> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.


Sorry junior, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> Oh, so you rationalize your hypocrisy with a date? WoW! That's a steaming huge load of ...


I'm not rationalizing anything.

What Israel is doing to the Palestinian's, is illegal.

What we did to Native American's, was wrong.

See the difference?


----------



## Billo_Really

pbel said:


> Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...
> 
> Do you get it?


Much like a neutered dog, I don't think he does!


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeppers...
> 
> And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...
> 
> Fun, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, "separation" or separate development in Afrikaans is called "Apartheid".  There you go, you are starting to get it.
Click to expand...

If I have people, sworn for decades to destroy me-and-mine and to drown us in the Med, suicide bombing me, and launching rocket-barrages at me, and digging tunnels into my turf, in order to launch guerrilla raids against my people, and if I can substantively lessen those attacks by keeping them separate, then I'm going to do just that, and fuck the UN or the Hague or the ICC or Geneva or the Arab League or anyone else who says I cannot. Fuck 'em. There is nothing to 'get'.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, and Israel is under no obligation to integrate them into their own society; those under-performers (the Muslim-Arab Palestinians) chose this path for themselves decades ago, and worsened things with Intifada I and II. They are now reaping what they have sown. If then don't like it, they can always leave. Permanently.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.


Sorry, my bad.

Here you go...

...land ownership in 1948.







BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.



Phoenall said:


> Lets take Poland that stole German land after WW1 and evicted the German land owners by force. You know that right of return well Germany implemented it and took back all the stolen land.


So now you're defending Nazi Germany?

Amazing!



Phoenall said:


> Now look at Palestine and who owned the land prior to the arab invasion of Israel in 1948, then implement the right of return and you have Jews taking back their land.


Oh, shut-up!


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> The war started when Egypt blocked the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which was seen as a declaration of war. Then they massed their troops on the Israeli border ready for an all out attack on Israel.


Ready for an all out attack, is not an attack; but sending your tanks over a sovereign border, is.



Phoenall said:


> Israel originally occupied Jordanian land as a defensive measure until Jordan relinquished all claims to the land


That not defense, that's aggression.

If it was defensive, they would've given the land back.



Phoenall said:


> They did as part of the arab armies invasion in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They have also attacked Israel through terrorism and bombings since 1948.


Who's this "they" people?



Phoenall said:


> Yes Poland stole German land as part of the reparations after WW1 and evicted by force the German land owners.
> The details are in the treaties made in the run up to the mandate of Palestine.


More defense of Nazi Germany.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> ...land ownership in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets take Poland that stole German land after WW1 and evicted the German land owners by force. You know that right of return well Germany implemented it and took back all the stolen land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're defending Nazi Germany?
> 
> Amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at Palestine and who owned the land prior to the arab invasion of Israel in 1948, then implement the right of return and you have Jews taking back their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, shut-up!
Click to expand...


'Dickwadd'

The last time I heard someone use that bane was in high school.
But hey, if you choose to act like an immature kid, that's your problem.


----------



## rdean

Republicans won't bow.  But when it comes to kissing?  There is no limit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> ...land ownership in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.*
Click to expand...


Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> ...land ownership in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.
Click to expand...


Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> ...land ownership in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job
Click to expand...


Example?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeppers...
> 
> And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...
> 
> Fun, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, "separation" or separate development in Afrikaans is called "Apartheid".  There you go, you are starting to get it.
Click to expand...


You build a fence so your neighbor's dog stop destroying your yard, that is just good sense.  Or you call the police and SPCA and have him put down if the neighbor's can't control their pet.


----------



## pbel

rdean said:


> Republicans won't bow.  But when it comes to kissing?  There is no limit.



I will bet the Republicans will Bow again to the changing Demographics in favor of inclusionary politics.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> 'Dickwadd'
> 
> The last time I heard someone use that bane was in high school.
> But hey, if you choose to act like an immature kid, that's your problem.


I only have one?  Cool!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example?
Click to expand...


Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought.

You don't have squat.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You don't have squat.
Click to expand...


Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them. 
A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. Or about how Palestine=mandate. 
You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is an answer, but Paul won't like it. The year 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a little late. My question stemmed from resolution 3236 of 1974. This shows that the Palestinians already had the right to self determination then.
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti,  Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.

Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights.  You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference:  "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."  That report to the General Assembly says in part:



			
				Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People 
Bottom Paragraph Page 1 said:
			
		

> The Committee's recommendations *were not adopted* by the Security Council, due to the negative vote of a permanent member, and have not been implemented. They were, however, endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly, to which the Committee reports annually. The Assembly reaffirmed that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established without the achievement of a just solution of the problem of Palestine based on the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The Assembly also requested the Committee to keep the situation relating to the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate, and to promote the greatest possible dissemination of information on its recommendations through non-governmental organizations and other appropriate means.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Report by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People



This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting.  Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible.  The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything.  They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.

I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference.  Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan.  It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988).

If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti.  However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins _(as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes)_ in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.  

You are free to make your own evaluation.  But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.

Just My Thought,
R


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You don't have squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
> Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
> All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them.
> A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. Or about how Palestine=mandate.
> You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.
Click to expand...

If Tinmore was right about his claims I should think the PA would run him for Prime Minister. He'd be a shoo in. Either that or Court Jester.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, there is a point here.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What occupation?
Click to expand...


"One of the most important problems that must be cleared up before a lasting peace can be established *in Palestine* is the question of the disposition of more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now *Israeli occupied territory...*"

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You don't have squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
> Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
> All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them.
> A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. *Or about how Palestine=mandate. *
> You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.
Click to expand...


I have already proved that Palestine exists after the end of the mandate.

Next?


----------



## Sally

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "One of the most important problems that must be cleared up before a lasting peace can be established *in Palestine* is the question of the disposition of more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now *Israeli occupied territory...*"
> 
> FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa
Click to expand...


Mr. Tinmore, how many of these 700,000 people are still alive?  Millions of people after World War II were displaced, and after a few years they certainly didn't think of themselves as refugees anymore and, of course, their children never thought of themselves as refugees.  Those children of World War II refugees who were born in the U.S. just thought of themselves as Americans and not refugees of the country their parents had to leave.  Do you consider yourself a refugee?


----------



## Kondor3

Sally said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most important problems that must be cleared up before a lasting peace can be established *in Palestine* is the question of the disposition of more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now *Israeli occupied territory...*"
> 
> FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Tinmore, how many of these 700,000 people are still alive?  Millions of people after World War II were displaced, and after a few years they certainly didn't think of themselves as refugees anymore and, of course, their children never thought of themselves as refugees.  Those children of World War II refugees who were born in the U.S. just thought of themselves as Americans and not refugees of the country their parents had to leave.  Do you consider yourself a refugee?
Click to expand...

Good point.

Then again, we _are_ talking about World Class _Under_-Performers, here...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is an answer, but Paul won't like it. The year 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a little late. My question stemmed from resolution 3236 of 1974. This shows that the Palestinians already had the right to self determination then.
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti,  Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.
> 
> Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights.  You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference:  "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."  That report to the General Assembly says in part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
> Bottom Paragraph Page 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Committee's recommendations *were not adopted* by the Security Council, due to the negative vote of a permanent member, and have not been implemented. They were, however, endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly, to which the Committee reports annually. The Assembly reaffirmed that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established without the achievement of a just solution of the problem of Palestine based on the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The Assembly also requested the Committee to keep the situation relating to the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate, and to promote the greatest possible dissemination of information on its recommendations through non-governmental organizations and other appropriate means.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ Report by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting.  Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible.  The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything.  They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.
> 
> I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference.  Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan.  It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988).
> 
> If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti.  However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins _(as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes)_ in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.
> 
> You are free to make your own evaluation.  But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> R
Click to expand...


Perhaps this will help.



> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a little late. My question stemmed from resolution 3236 of 1974. This shows that the Palestinians already had the right to self determination then.
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti,  Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.
> 
> Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights.  You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference:  "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."  That report to the General Assembly says in part:
> 
> 
> 
> This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting.  Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible.  The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything.  They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.
> 
> I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference.  Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan.  It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988).
> 
> If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti.  However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins _(as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes)_ in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.
> 
> You are free to make your own evaluation.  But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Define the Boundaries. Show us that precise map.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> ...Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
Click to expand...

They should have declared on May 14, 1948, alongside the Israelis.

Several months late and a dollar short.

Typical incompetent Palestinian fumbling.

You snooze... you lose.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti,  Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.
> 
> Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights.  You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference:  "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."  That report to the General Assembly says in part:
> 
> 
> 
> This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting.  Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible.  The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything.  They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.
> 
> I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference.  Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan.  It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988).
> 
> If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti.  However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins _(as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes)_ in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.
> 
> You are free to make your own evaluation.  But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define the Boundaries. Show us that precise map.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should have declared on May 14, 1948, alongside the Israelis.
> 
> Several months late and a dollar short.
> 
> Typical incompetent Palestinian fumbling.
> 
> You snooze... you lose.
Click to expand...


Palestine declared independence inside its own borders.

Israel declared independence inside Palestine's borders.

OOOPS!


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> Define the Boundaries. Show us that precise map.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


six wars, the map will change.


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define the Boundaries. Show us that precise map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> six wars, the map will change.
Click to expand...


Not yet.

Changing Palestine's borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> six wars, the map will change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> Changing Palestine's borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.
Click to expand...


since there was no state, palestine had no set borders.  Arabs annexed, occupied and last land and gave up during six wars against Israel.  If palestine wants borders, they need to compromise with Israel, not make demands.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> They should have declared on May 14, 1948, alongside the Israelis.
> 
> Several months late and a dollar short.
> 
> Typical incompetent Palestinian fumbling.
> 
> You snooze... you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders.
> 
> Israel declared independence inside Palestine's borders.
> 
> OOOPS!
Click to expand...


Palestine declared independence 40 years AFTER Israel declared independence.
OOPS !!

Oh, and your post is a lie and I'm certain you have zero proof of this.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "One of the most important problems that must be cleared up before a lasting peace can be established *in Palestine* is the question of the disposition of more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now *Israeli occupied territory...*"
> 
> FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa
Click to expand...


They are talking about the West Bank genius LOL !!!

Keep it up with your lies Tinmore!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> You don't have squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
> Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
> All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them.
> A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. *Or about how Palestine=mandate. *
> You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already proved that Palestine exists after the end of the mandate.
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


Palestine the what??


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> six wars, the map will change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> Changing Palestine's borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> since there was no state, palestine had no set borders.  Arabs annexed, occupied and last land and gave up during six wars against Israel.  If palestine wants borders, they need to compromise with Israel, not make demands.
Click to expand...


That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> Define the Boundaries. Show us that precise map.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Once again Tinmore can't even produce a map of Palestine inside its boundaries, so he pastes a map that shows PROPOSED boundaries haha

But, what can I expect from someone who didn't even know when Palestine became a sovereign state


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> Changing Palestine's borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since there was no state, palestine had no set borders.  Arabs annexed, occupied and last land and gave up during six wars against Israel.  If palestine wants borders, they need to compromise with Israel, not make demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
Click to expand...

O.K. Do you want to go with that, Tinmore?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> Changing Palestine's borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since there was no state, palestine had no set borders.  Arabs annexed, occupied and last land and gave up during six wars against Israel.  If palestine wants borders, they need to compromise with Israel, not make demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
Click to expand...


Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
All you have is a map of proposed borders.
I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> Changing Palestine's borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since there was no state, palestine had no set borders.  Arabs annexed, occupied and last land and gave up during six wars against Israel.  If palestine wants borders, they need to compromise with Israel, not make demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
Click to expand...

What does "ad hoc" mean, Tinmore? Any idea? What's your definition?


----------



## toastman

'There is no question about Palestines borders'

That's because they don't exist....


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> since there was no state, palestine had no set borders.  Arabs annexed, occupied and last land and gave up during six wars against Israel.  If palestine wants borders, they need to compromise with Israel, not make demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
> All you have is a map of proposed borders.
> I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.
Click to expand...


Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, I've seen this many times before...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a little late. My question stemmed from resolution 3236 of 1974. This shows that the Palestinians already had the right to self determination then.
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti,  Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.
> 
> Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights.  You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference:  "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."  That report to the General Assembly says in part:
> 
> 
> 
> This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting.  Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible.  The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything.  They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.
> 
> I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference.  Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan.  It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988).
> 
> If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti.  However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins _(as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes)_ in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.
> 
> You are free to make your own evaluation.  But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This was totally ignored.

It is a case of the All Palestine Government trying to mimic the Notification of Independence that the Jewish Agency send 5 month earlier in accordance with the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

So no, this doesn't count at all.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
> All you have is a map of proposed borders.
> I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
Click to expand...

You're right about that but it was ad hoc.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
> All you have is a map of proposed borders.
> I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
Click to expand...


Read the title of the map, the entire map itself is proposed. And nowhere does it say that the solid lines are proposed borders. 

And the +- cannot be Palestines borders because they run along the lines where Israels int'l borders are with Egypt and Jordan. 
How can Egypt and Jordan have one border with two countries??


----------



## toastman

Here is a map of Israel with its internationally recognized borders 

Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, I've seen this many times before...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti,  Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.
> 
> Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights.  You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference:  "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."  That report to the General Assembly says in part:
> 
> 
> 
> This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting.  Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible.  The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything.  They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.
> 
> I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference.  Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan.  It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827  S/20278 18 November 1988).
> 
> If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti.  However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins _(as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes)_ in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.
> 
> You are free to make your own evaluation.  But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE *NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS* AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE...
> 
> A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *This was totally ignored.*
> 
> It is a case of the All Palestine Government trying to mimic the Notification of Independence that the Jewish Agency send 5 month earlier in accordance with the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> So no, this doesn't count at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


 The declaratory theory claims that a State will be formed free from the consents of the other States, just after she meet the international requirements. This approach is laid down in the first sentence of Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention (1933), "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

http://www.justice.gov.tr/e-journal/pdf/LW7081.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
> All you have is a map of proposed borders.
> I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the title of the map, the entire map itself is proposed. And nowhere does it say that the solid lines are proposed borders.
> 
> And the +- cannot be Palestines borders because they run along the lines where Israels int'l borders are with Egypt and Jordan.
> How can Egypt and Jordan have one border with two countries??
Click to expand...


Not so. It is a 1946 map of Palestine with proposed borders drawn on top.

Good question since Palestine had those borders since the '20s. And the land that those borders define is Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the title of the map, the entire map itself is proposed. And nowhere does it say that the solid lines are proposed borders.
> 
> And the +- cannot be Palestines borders because they run along the lines where Israels int'l borders are with Egypt and Jordan.
> How can Egypt and Jordan have one border with two countries??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so. It is a 1946 map of Palestine with proposed borders drawn on top.
> 
> Good question since Palestine had those borders since the '20s. And the land that those borders define is Palestine.
Click to expand...


Do you see Palestine anywhere on that map?? Those borders have nothing to do with Palestine. And if it is true that Palestine had those borders since the 20's, then they are irrelevant since Israels borders were signed way after Palestines (not that a believe those were ever Palestines borders). 

And once again, the map you showed me is a PROPOSED PARTITION PLAN with proposed borders: 
Why can't you provide a map that just says Palestine and not 'Partition plan'?

Answer: because a map of Palestine with those borders doesn't exist


----------



## toastman

'And the land that those borders define is Palestine'

Sorry, I had to come back to this comment.

This is easily one of the most ridiculous things you said. Those are ISRAELS borders that were agreed upon with ISRAEL & EGYPT and ISRAEL & JORDAN. NOTHING to do with Palestine. Again, the land within those borders is Israels, hence the name Israel on the map. Pretty simple, no?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all well and good to post nonsense from Zionist propaganda sites, but at least don't insult our intelligence by editing the nonsense and then not providing links.  You are one of the biggest bullshitters I have seen posting.
> 
> Now let's check out the text from source materials and not bullshit:
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> 
> PALESTINE,
> 
> during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.
> 
> 
> AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.
> 
> I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*
> 
> of 700,000 people "*Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians,* in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. "
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a Zionist site little boy but a completely unbiased one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and I'm Santa Claus.
Click to expand...




 Then look at the history of your post and see that the ANTI SEMITIC British government fudged the figures to hide the illegal immigration by arab muslims after WW2 while they were ILLEGALLY banning Jewish migration to Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> 
> 
> The South Afrikaaners and Rhodesians separated Whites from Blacks based on Racial Prejudice.
> 
> The Israelis separate themselves from Muslim-Arab Palestinians due to safety concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they displaced the non-Jews (Christians and Muslims) and separate them because they are non-Jews and want to maintain complete Jewish control, just as the whites wanted to maintain complete control.
Click to expand...




 Is that why 20% of the citizens in Israel are Non Jewish then. It shows that you are singing from the ISLAMONAZI hymnbook when you post these easily proven LIES.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Tinmore can tell us all about the security problems when Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II.  I am not up on this, but perhaps he is the one who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
Click to expand...





 Unlike Palestine that was arab muslim settler colonial occupations that were in breach of International law and the LoN Mandate


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Japanese and Germans did not murder Americans the way your Arab brethren want to murder the Jews and destroy Israel. * You have posted numerous time that Israel is in Palestine so in your mind all of Israel doesn't exist* -- that it is all Arab land.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Tinnie, your brethren were some of the biggest colonizers in the world, but of course you close your eyes to that.  Look at all the land they are ruling over now from the time they left the Saudi Peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...





 Your ISLAMONAZI version of Israel being in Palestine is far removed from the legal aspect of Israel being in Palestine. The legal aspect puts Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in Palestine as well.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not settler, colonial occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, there is a point here.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
Click to expand...




 The arab muslims were in breach of International Law and the many treaties they had signed in the preceeding 16 years. So the UN should have sent in a task force and cleared them out of palestine


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation.  The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, there is a point here.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What occupation?
Click to expand...




 He means the arab muslim illegal occupation that wanted all of the land


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever posted any proof to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why thank you for admitting that your brethren were one of the largest colonizers in the world.  Such a shame, though, that they can't in this modern world allow the people they rule over to practice their religion in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is a bit of hyperbole.  The British colonized as far away as Australia and New Zealand and at one time 2/3s of the world's population was under British rule.  I don't think the Arabs or the Ottomans even came close.
Click to expand...




 Have you seen a world map lately and just how much land has been acquired by Islamic violence and ethnic cleansing.








 Cause for concern that so  many Christian nations have been infested with islam.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations always have security problems.
> 
> It comes with the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeppers...
> 
> And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...
> 
> Fun, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, "separation" or separate development in Afrikaans is called "Apartheid".  There you go, you are starting to get it.
Click to expand...





 It is only apartheid when the country is divided along religious/racial/cultural lines. So were is the apartheid in Israel that you are screeching about. The "separation" in Palestine is the same as the "separation" in Saudi to separate terrorist mass murderers from the population. The "separation" is there to stop suicide bombers targeting Israeli children, the planting of illegal chemical and biological IED's to mass murder Israeli children and to bring about a stop to terrorist attacks on Israel. If the Palestinians are put out by this then they should look to having their government call a halt to state sanctioned terrorism. The solution is in the hands of the Palestinian citizenry and only they can bring about a solution.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> Certainly NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dancing around the question.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them.  But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.
> 
> I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings.  I can give you the coordinates _(for a given date and time)_.  But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope _(the capability)_ means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​
> Just saying the words, means nothing.  The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had all the capability _(and more)_ it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State.  But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all.  They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation.  That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.
> 
> That is foolish.  Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers.  And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...


Look, the tin hyprocrite is arguing about a meaningless piece of paper again! WOW! WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE!!! 

At what point in time do you concede defeat to the superior Israelis?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> They should have declared on May 14, 1948, alongside the Israelis.
> 
> Several months late and a dollar short.
> 
> Typical incompetent Palestinian fumbling.
> 
> You snooze... you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine declared independence inside its own borders.
> 
> Israel declared independence inside Palestine's borders.
> 
> OOOPS!
Click to expand...

Israel seceded from the nonexistent Union, based primarily upon land parcels that they already owned.

And then made the secession stick.

Ooops!

Next slide, please.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That map's international boundaries are clear. Those same borders are referenced in the 1949 armistice agreements. There is no question about Palestine's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
> All you have is a map of proposed borders.
> I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
Click to expand...

The Palestinian Civil War (_the Israeli-Arab Wars of 1947-1949_) resulted in a permanent division of the unincorporated territory formerly known as Palestine into a Jewish-controlled nation-state and an unincorporated Muslim-Arab territory.

Wars change maps, and set aside old understandings and legal standings and political configurations.

It's the way the Real World works.

Get used to it.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why cant you post a map of Palestine with the marked borders ))
> All you have is a map of proposed borders.
> I have a map of Israel with the internationally recognized boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinian Civil War (_the Israeli-Arab Wars of 1947-1949_) resulted in a permanent division of the unincorporated territory formerly known as Palestine into a Jewish-controlled nation-state and an unincorporated Muslim-Arab territory.
> 
> Wars change maps, and set aside old understandings and legal standings and political configurations.
> 
> It's the way the Real World works.
> 
> Get used to it.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.


----------



## MHunterB

Monte - you and Tinnny and the rest may want to re-think that gleeful anticipation already.  According to your ilk 'the Jews' (at less than 2% of population) are running the US and half of the Western world - so 'demographics' won't change matters much.

Unless, of course, you assert that the "Palestinians' have the right to legislate their citizenship out from under the Jews the way the Arab League nations across the ME/NA have already done?

In which case it becomes obvious that you - and they - are not on the side of 'peace, justice, and freedom'  after all.   

But I think most of us already realized that:  it's clear enough from the PA/PLO and HAMAS  Charters anyway.


----------



## montelatici

MHunterB said:


> Monte - you and Tinnny and the rest may want to re-think that gleeful anticipation already.  According to your ilk 'the Jews' (at less than 2% of population) are running the US and half of the Western world - so 'demographics' won't change matters much.
> 
> Unless, of course, you assert that the "Palestinians' have the right to legislate their citizenship out from under the Jews the way the Arab League nations across the ME/NA have already done?
> 
> In which case it becomes obvious that you - and they - are not on the side of 'peace, justice, and freedom'  after all.
> 
> But I think most of us already realized that:  it's clear enough from the PA/PLO and HAMAS  Charters anyway.



I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte - you and Tinnny and the rest may want to re-think that gleeful anticipation already.  According to your ilk 'the Jews' (at less than 2% of population) are running the US and half of the Western world - so 'demographics' won't change matters much.
> 
> Unless, of course, you assert that the "Palestinians' have the right to legislate their citizenship out from under the Jews the way the Arab League nations across the ME/NA have already done?
> 
> In which case it becomes obvious that you - and they - are not on the side of 'peace, justice, and freedom'  after all.
> 
> But I think most of us already realized that:  it's clear enough from the PA/PLO and HAMAS  Charters anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.
Click to expand...


European state??


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte - you and Tinnny and the rest may want to re-think that gleeful anticipation already.  According to your ilk 'the Jews' (at less than 2% of population) are running the US and half of the Western world - so 'demographics' won't change matters much.
> 
> Unless, of course, you assert that the "Palestinians' have the right to legislate their citizenship out from under the Jews the way the Arab League nations across the ME/NA have already done?
> 
> In which case it becomes obvious that you - and they - are not on the side of 'peace, justice, and freedom'  after all.
> 
> But I think most of us already realized that:  it's clear enough from the PA/PLO and HAMAS  Charters anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European state??
Click to expand...


Settled by Europeans, it has a society that is quite similar in standard of living and overall life to European societies and it is a member of many European-only organizations:

UEFA (European Football Federation) Israel plays in European national team competitions.

Center of European Nuclear Research (CERN), etc.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Civil War (_the Israeli-Arab Wars of 1947-1949_) resulted in a permanent division of the unincorporated territory formerly known as Palestine into a Jewish-controlled nation-state and an unincorporated Muslim-Arab territory.
> 
> Wars change maps, and set aside old understandings and legal standings and political configurations.
> 
> It's the way the Real World works.
> 
> Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
Click to expand...

You (pro-Palestinian advocates) seem to be operating under the impression that Israel will do nothing while this so-called Demographics Threat unfolds.

There is no threat from _within_ the present borders of Israel, if one omits the West Bank and Gaza from that definition.

If Israel decides to complete its Reconquista and annexes the West Bank and/or Gaza in perpetuity, it will forcibly evict and expel the Palestinians and then move Israelis into the vacuum to consolidate those new holdings.

Thereby removing the Demographics Threat before it ever materializes.

Encroachment upon the Rump (vestigial, remnant) West Bank continues apace and appears to be accelerating.

Nobody is going to stop Israel if it _does_ choose to go the Expulsion route; or, should I say, should they openly declare the obvious.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Civil War (_the Israeli-Arab Wars of 1947-1949_) resulted in a permanent division of the unincorporated territory formerly known as Palestine into a Jewish-controlled nation-state and an unincorporated Muslim-Arab territory.
> 
> Wars change maps, and set aside old understandings and legal standings and political configurations.
> 
> It's the way the Real World works.
> 
> Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (pro-Palestinian advocates) seem to be operating under the impression that Israel will do nothing while this so-called Demographics Threat unfolds.
> 
> There is no threat from _within_ the present borders of Israel, if one omits the West Bank and Gaza from that definition.
> 
> If Israel decides to complete its Reconquista and annexes the West Bank and/or Gaza in perpetuity, it will forcibly evict and expel the Palestinians and then move Israelis into the vacuum to consolidate those new holdings.
> 
> Thereby removing the Demographics Threat before it ever materializes.
> 
> Encroachment upon the Rump (vestigial, remnant) West Bank continues apace and appears to be accelerating.
> 
> Nobody is going to stop Israel if it _does_ choose to go the Expulsion route; or, should I say, should they openly declare the obvious.
Click to expand...


How do you figure Israel will be able to expel/kill 5-6 million people logistically? And, do you think the U.S. would stand by and allow what is perceived its client state by the rest of the world to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing?  If the US allowed it to happen, there would be serious negative economic consequences for America.  Ever take a look to see how much the U.S. sells to the Muslim world.  The UN would impose South Africa style sanctions that the U.S. would not veto.  The EU, Israel's biggest trading partner would impose even stricter sanctions.  I don't think you have thought this through.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> 'And the land that those borders define is Palestine'
> 
> Sorry, I had to come back to this comment.
> 
> This is easily one of the most ridiculous things you said. Those are ISRAELS borders that were agreed upon with ISRAEL & EGYPT and ISRAEL & JORDAN. NOTHING to do with Palestine. Again, the land within those borders is Israels, hence the name Israel on the map. Pretty simple, no?





> With a view to promoting the return of permanent peace *in Palestine...*
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949





> 2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier.*
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja (the main road that enters Palestine from Egypt to Beersheba) shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949



After the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel's declaration of independence, and after the 1948 war, Israel signed two separate agreements stating that the Negev was still Palestine.

Nobody has ever documented when that territory became Israel.


----------



## toastman

Tinmore, again for the 100th time: The Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE the agreements with Jordan and Egypt! 

Goodness gracious Tinmore!!! 

Not to mention, you still did 't prove what you claimed earlier.


----------



## toastman

And no , Israel did not sign agreements saying the Negev is Palestine.

What's the matter with you????? You must be paid to spread this distortion of history..


----------



## toastman

'No one has ever documented when that territory became Israel'

It became Israels after they legally declared independence on that land.

The whole 'document when it became Israels land' is something YOU MADE UP. 
Israel did not need to follow the Tinmore pre requisites to become a state. 

Stop making up these bullshit claims to further your agenda


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Tinmore, again for the 100th time: The Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE the agreements with Jordan and Egypt!
> 
> Goodness gracious Tinmore!!!
> 
> Not to mention, you still did 't prove what you claimed earlier.



Indeed they were. Now Israel is claiming borders on land that it agreed was Palestine. 

BTW, which previous claim are you questioning?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, again for the 100th time: The Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE the agreements with Jordan and Egypt!
> 
> Goodness gracious Tinmore!!!
> 
> Not to mention, you still did 't prove what you claimed earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they were. Now Israel is claiming borders on land that it agreed was Palestine.
> 
> BTW, which previous claim are you questioning?
Click to expand...


Again, it's not Israel claiming those borders! The U.N is the one that wrote the treaty! 
And It's Israels land, not Palestines! Israel never signed an agreement saying it was Palestines. You made that up as well.

Would you like to see the treaties once again that CLEARLY define Israels internationally recognized boundaries with Egypt and Jordan?? 
How bout a map?? 

Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> 'No one has ever documented when that territory became Israel'
> 
> It became Israels after they legally declared independence on that land.
> 
> The whole 'document when it became Israels land' is something YOU MADE UP.
> Israel did not need to follow the Tinmore pre requisites to become a state.
> 
> Stop making up these bullshit claims to further your agenda



1) Israel's declaration of independence did not claim any land or borders.

2) The armistice agreements were signed after Israel's declaration.


----------



## toastman

Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. We've been through this many times Tinmore.

The Armistice agreements, which you CONSTANTLY bring up, have nothing to do with what you're talking about.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. We've been through this many times Tinmore.
> 
> The Armistice agreements, which you CONSTANTLY bring up, have nothing to do with what you're talking about.



Israel never claimed the land or recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.


----------



## Phoenall

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> Certainly NOT!
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them.  But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.
> 
> I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings.  I can give you the coordinates _(for a given date and time)_.  But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope _(the capability)_ means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​
> Just saying the words, means nothing.  The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had all the capability _(and more)_ it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State.  But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all.  They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation.  That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.
> 
> That is foolish.  Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers.  And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, the tin hyprocrite is arguing about a meaningless piece of paper again! WOW! WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE!!!
> 
> At what point in time do you concede defeat to the superior Israelis?
Click to expand...





 That is unfair the ISLAMONAZI's cant think as we do their education is along the lines of muslim good everyone else must die. He does not understand being given the rights and employing them are two totally opposite constructs. They could have been given the rights as far back as 627 C.E. when Mohamed invented islam, that is not the issue. What is the issue is their ability to use those rights in a meaningful manner.


----------



## toastman

Nothing you are telling me means anything Tinmore. 
You're just making up shit that has zero merit in this conversation.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, I've seen this many times before...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *This was totally ignored.*
> 
> It is a case of the All Palestine Government trying to mimic the Notification of Independence that the Jewish Agency send 5 month earlier in accordance with the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> So no, this doesn't count at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The declaratory theory claims that a State will be formed free from the consents of the other States, just after she meet the international requirements. This approach is laid down in the first sentence of Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention (1933), "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
> 
> http://www.justice.gov.tr/e-journal/pdf/LW7081.pdf
Click to expand...





As you constantly claim a state can not declare on an existing states land. So because Israel got in first and declared on the partition borders the arab muslims could not come along later and say this land is ours get off.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guided by the *purposes and principles* of the Charter,
> 
> *Recalling* its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> 1. *Reaffirms* the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
> 
> (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.
> 
> At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
Click to expand...


Well, Rocco, It really looks like you intend to duck this question.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the title of the map, the entire map itself is proposed. And nowhere does it say that the solid lines are proposed borders.
> 
> And the +- cannot be Palestines borders because they run along the lines where Israels int'l borders are with Egypt and Jordan.
> How can Egypt and Jordan have one border with two countries??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so. It is a 1946 map of Palestine with proposed borders drawn on top.
> 
> Good question since Palestine had those borders since the '20s. And the land that those borders define is Palestine.
Click to expand...


Wrong again as the borders of Palestine included what is now Jordan, Syria and Lebanon as seen here.








 Note the legend that states the area in white was to be the new National Home of the JEWS


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the legend. The international boundaries are marked +-+-+-+-. The proposed, but never implemented, borders are solid lines.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Civil War (_the Israeli-Arab Wars of 1947-1949_) resulted in a permanent division of the unincorporated territory formerly known as Palestine into a Jewish-controlled nation-state and an unincorporated Muslim-Arab territory.
> 
> Wars change maps, and set aside old understandings and legal standings and political configurations.
> 
> It's the way the Real World works.
> 
> Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
Click to expand...





 Only if the population has the weapons with which to fight. In the case of hamas and fatah they have had their fangs pulled and are not a danger. And the way the muslims are going those self same demographics will bring about the collapse of their empires due to starvation and thirst.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Civil War (_the Israeli-Arab Wars of 1947-1949_) resulted in a permanent division of the unincorporated territory formerly known as Palestine into a Jewish-controlled nation-state and an unincorporated Muslim-Arab territory.
> 
> Wars change maps, and set aside old understandings and legal standings and political configurations.
> 
> It's the way the Real World works.
> 
> Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the population has the weapons with which to fight. In the case of hamas and fatah they have had their fangs pulled and are not a danger. And the way the muslims are going those self same demographics will bring about the collapse of their empires due to starvation and thirst.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are throwing Fatah and Hamas into the dustbin of history.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
> 
> 
> 
> You (pro-Palestinian advocates) seem to be operating under the impression that Israel will do nothing while this so-called Demographics Threat unfolds.
> 
> There is no threat from _within_ the present borders of Israel, if one omits the West Bank and Gaza from that definition.
> 
> If Israel decides to complete its Reconquista and annexes the West Bank and/or Gaza in perpetuity, it will forcibly evict and expel the Palestinians and then move Israelis into the vacuum to consolidate those new holdings.
> 
> Thereby removing the Demographics Threat before it ever materializes.
> 
> Encroachment upon the Rump (vestigial, remnant) West Bank continues apace and appears to be accelerating.
> 
> Nobody is going to stop Israel if it _does_ choose to go the Expulsion route; or, should I say, should they openly declare the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure Israel will be able to expel/kill 5-6 million people logistically? And, do you think the U.S. would stand by and allow what is perceived its client state by the rest of the world to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing?  If the US allowed it to happen, there would be serious negative economic consequences for America.  Ever take a look to see how much the U.S. sells to the Muslim world.  The UN would impose South Africa style sanctions that the U.S. would not veto.  The EU, Israel's biggest trading partner would impose even stricter sanctions.  I don't think you have thought this through.
Click to expand...

Have you considered ZOG?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte - you and Tinnny and the rest may want to re-think that gleeful anticipation already.  According to your ilk 'the Jews' (at less than 2% of population) are running the US and half of the Western world - so 'demographics' won't change matters much.
> 
> Unless, of course, you assert that the "Palestinians' have the right to legislate their citizenship out from under the Jews the way the Arab League nations across the ME/NA have already done?
> 
> In which case it becomes obvious that you - and they - are not on the side of 'peace, justice, and freedom'  after all.
> 
> But I think most of us already realized that:  it's clear enough from the PA/PLO and HAMAS  Charters anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.
Click to expand...





 Just your opinion that you have been told to voice by your imam, the fact is the Palestinians are facing extinction through demographics and will soon be at their weakest. The next virulent disease will start in gaza and will spread like wildfire. It will decimate the population and leave hamas with no people to govern. Then the west bank will suffer the same pestilence and will also be decimated. And Israel is under no compunction to lift a finger to help the Palestinians now they are walking away from peace talks.

 The hamas, fatah and PLO charters spell out the fate of the Jews if the Palestinians gain control, it is total genocide down to the last living person. There will be no quarter given as the muslim hatred runs too deep.


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte - you and Tinnny and the rest may want to re-think that gleeful anticipation already.  According to your ilk 'the Jews' (at less than 2% of population) are running the US and half of the Western world - so 'demographics' won't change matters much.
> 
> Unless, of course, you assert that the "Palestinians' have the right to legislate their citizenship out from under the Jews the way the Arab League nations across the ME/NA have already done?
> 
> In which case it becomes obvious that you - and they - are not on the side of 'peace, justice, and freedom'  after all.
> 
> But I think most of us already realized that:  it's clear enough from the PA/PLO and HAMAS  Charters anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European state??
Click to expand...





 ISLAMONAZI speak for "better than we are"


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> European state??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settled by Europeans, it has a society that is quite similar in standard of living and overall life to European societies and it is a member of many European-only organizations:
> 
> UEFA (European Football Federation) Israel plays in European national team competitions.
> 
> Center of European Nuclear Research (CERN), etc.
Click to expand...





 ISLAMONAZI speak again  as it was settled by Jews invited by the lands legal owners . Yes it is a member of some European societies just as muslim Turkey is, as well as many ex soviet states are.

 Many non European states are also part of CERN so your point in this is a non starter.


 The true facts are the Israel is leaps and bounds ahead of any muslim nation in the M.E. in regards to civil liberties, welfare, employment, medicine, computer engineering, desalination, ethics and any other aspect of modern life you can think of.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
> 
> 
> 
> You (pro-Palestinian advocates) seem to be operating under the impression that Israel will do nothing while this so-called Demographics Threat unfolds.
> 
> There is no threat from _within_ the present borders of Israel, if one omits the West Bank and Gaza from that definition.
> 
> If Israel decides to complete its Reconquista and annexes the West Bank and/or Gaza in perpetuity, it will forcibly evict and expel the Palestinians and then move Israelis into the vacuum to consolidate those new holdings.
> 
> Thereby removing the Demographics Threat before it ever materializes.
> 
> Encroachment upon the Rump (vestigial, remnant) West Bank continues apace and appears to be accelerating.
> 
> Nobody is going to stop Israel if it _does_ choose to go the Expulsion route; or, should I say, should they openly declare the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure Israel will be able to expel/kill 5-6 million people logistically? And, do you think the U.S. would stand by and allow what is perceived its client state by the rest of the world to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing?  If the US allowed it to happen, there would be serious negative economic consequences for America.  Ever take a look to see how much the U.S. sells to the Muslim world.  The UN would impose South Africa style sanctions that the U.S. would not veto.  The EU, Israel's biggest trading partner would impose even stricter sanctions.  I don't think you have thought this through.
Click to expand...





 Very simple just infect them with a disease resistant to all known antigens, one that is aerosol transmitted and mimics say Typhoid or Typhus. The survivors will be given the chance of living as Israeli citizens or of carrying on living with the decomposing bodies of their fellow citizens. 

 Just one scenario

 Or they could simply increase the pressure and see them leave of their own accord


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, they did.  You are making arbitrary requirements so as to fit your agenda.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. We've been through this many times Tinmore.
> 
> The Armistice agreements, which you CONSTANTLY bring up, have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed the land or recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Declaration of Independence clearly states it coordinated with the UNPC in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The border dispute arose after the Invasion and External Interference of the Arab League.  The resulting tactical military outcome changed some of the territorial controls. 

*(SIDEBAR) *

 You periodically make these claims as if there is some substance to them.  You overlook the point that the Arab Armies conspired to attack Israel even before it was proclaimed. It was an effort, by the Arabs, to use force (right of conquest) to attain control of territory the UN said was Partitioned.  The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law.   And they now live with the outcome of that set of decisions.

You cannot set your own criteria - under your agenda - and demand that - a half century after the fact, they be met.  The Arab League Armies crossed their borders, invading the Partitioned Territory, and openly attacked the Jewish Nation in order to overturn the establishment of Israel.  Remembering that Israel was established in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence set by the UN.   The Arabs attempted to overturn by force, the right of self-determination exercised by the Israeli People.  The Arabs were the aggressor, the external interference, and the territorial invader; leaving their sovereignty and entering another.  They couldn't have been more in the wrong then if they were an Axis Power.

The concept of inalienable national rights of the people applies equally as well to the Jewish People as it does to the Palestinian People.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'And the land that those borders define is Palestine'
> 
> Sorry, I had to come back to this comment.
> 
> This is easily one of the most ridiculous things you said. Those are ISRAELS borders that were agreed upon with ISRAEL & EGYPT and ISRAEL & JORDAN. NOTHING to do with Palestine. Again, the land within those borders is Israels, hence the name Israel on the map. Pretty simple, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a view to promoting the return of permanent peace *in Palestine...*
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier.*
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja (the main road that enters Palestine from Egypt to Beersheba) shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel's declaration of independence, and after the 1948 war, Israel signed two separate agreements stating that the Negev was still Palestine.
> 
> Nobody has ever documented when that territory became Israel.
Click to expand...





 Here you go the map of Israel as of May 14 1948


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tinmore, again for the 100th time: The Armistice agreements were signed BEFORE the agreements with Jordan and Egypt!
> 
> Goodness gracious Tinmore!!!
> 
> Not to mention, you still did 't prove what you claimed earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they were. Now Israel is claiming borders on land that it agreed was Palestine.
> 
> BTW, which previous claim are you questioning?
Click to expand...





 Under International law, LoN mandate, this was all Palestine right up until 1949


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'No one has ever documented when that territory became Israel'
> 
> It became Israels after they legally declared independence on that land.
> 
> The whole 'document when it became Israels land' is something YOU MADE UP.
> Israel did not need to follow the Tinmore pre requisites to become a state.
> 
> Stop making up these bullshit claims to further your agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Israel's declaration of independence did not claim any land or borders.
> 
> 2) The armistice agreements were signed after Israel's declaration.
Click to expand...






 1) correct as the arab muslims did not accept the UN partition so the borders were flexible from that point on

 2) correct and they paved the way for Israel to be admitted as a legal state under International law, The Palestinians lost out because they allowed the arab league to dictate to them thus providing outside interference.


 Israel declared independence initially on the partition plan and later amended it to not declare any borders because of arab muslim threats.


 Remember asking for a link to the Jews giving the non Jews full citizenship, well it is present in the declaration of independence.

Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representation in its bodies and institutions -- provisional or permanent.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. We've been through this many times Tinmore.
> 
> The Armistice agreements, which you CONSTANTLY bring up, have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed the land or recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
Click to expand...





 Nor did the Palestinians so what is your point. UN res 242 takes this into account and dictates that the borders be mutually negotiated and recognised.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'And the land that those borders define is Palestine'
> 
> Sorry, I had to come back to this comment.
> 
> This is easily one of the most ridiculous things you said. Those are ISRAELS borders that were agreed upon with ISRAEL & EGYPT and ISRAEL & JORDAN. NOTHING to do with Palestine. Again, the land within those borders is Israels, hence the name Israel on the map. Pretty simple, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a view to promoting the return of permanent peace *in Palestine...*
> 
> (d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier.*
> 
> 4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja (the main road that enters Palestine from Egypt to Beersheba) shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine. *
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel's declaration of independence, and after the 1948 war, Israel signed two separate agreements stating that the Negev was still Palestine.
> 
> Nobody has ever documented when that territory became Israel.
Click to expand...

Look the tin hypocrite is quoting another meaningless piece of paper. AGAIN! 

Nobody has ever documented what a hypocrite you are. No, wait! They have! At this board! 

Fuck man, you should be thanking the Israelis for not giving the palestinians blankets with smallpox on them!


----------



## MHunterB

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is unfortunate, because Israel is basically an advanced European state in the Middle East that could survive for the long term within a disadvantageous demographic environment with only some compromise.  With compromise, the Jews even if a minority within a multi-confessional secular democratic state, could maintain their culture as well or probably better than the Boers in South Africa, which also faced a demographic challenge of equal or worse proportions.  My point is that the Jews are at the peak of their negotiating power, it's not going to get any stronger, so they should get the best deal they can get now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> European state??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settled by Europeans, it has a society that is quite similar in standard of living and overall life to European societies and it is a member of many European-only organizations:
> 
> UEFA (European Football Federation) Israel plays in European national team competitions.
> 
> Center of European Nuclear Research (CERN), etc.
Click to expand...


Monte, *OVER HALF * of Jewish Israelis are *not* 'European' by anyone's meaning.  And the bulk of that over half are Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews - from elsewhere in ME/NA, due to the Arab League's ethnic cleansing of Jews from their many nations.

If Israeli teams play in Euro leagues - it's mostly because the Arab League nations  have acted as a bloc, to block participation by Israelis as part of their ongoing boycott - which began in 1945.


----------



## montelatici

MHunterB said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> European state??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settled by Europeans, it has a society that is quite similar in standard of living and overall life to European societies and it is a member of many European-only organizations:
> 
> UEFA (European Football Federation) Israel plays in European national team competitions.
> 
> Center of European Nuclear Research (CERN), etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monte, *OVER HALF * of Jewish Israelis are *not* 'European' by anyone's meaning.  And the bulk of that over half are Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews - from elsewhere in ME/NA, due to the Arab League's ethnic cleansing of Jews from their many nations.
> 
> If Israeli teams play in Euro leagues - it's mostly because the Arab League nations  have acted as a bloc, to block participation by Israelis as part of their ongoing boycott - which began in 1945.
Click to expand...


The original settlers were European and they set forth how Israel would be governed the type of society it would be and in this implemented European style system, it is what they knew and were.  It doesn't matter that later, immigrants came from outside Europe. The die was cast and today Israel is very similar to Europe.

It's not just the membership in UEFA, they are the only non-European country in European organizations like CERN,  the European Unions Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development,  the EUs Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System, Euromed Cultural Heritage, FEMISE, ArchiMedes etc.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the population has the weapons with which to fight. In the case of hamas and fatah they have had their fangs pulled and are not a danger. And the way the muslims are going those self same demographics will bring about the collapse of their empires due to starvation and thirst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are throwing Fatah and Hamas into the dustbin of history.
Click to expand...





 So when will the elections be held, or will it be a bloody civil war that will destroy both places Is that what the chemical weapons are to used for, to kill their own people


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settled by Europeans, it has a society that is quite similar in standard of living and overall life to European societies and it is a member of many European-only organizations:
> 
> UEFA (European Football Federation) Israel plays in European national team competitions.
> 
> Center of European Nuclear Research (CERN), etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, *OVER HALF * of Jewish Israelis are *not* 'European' by anyone's meaning.  And the bulk of that over half are Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews - from elsewhere in ME/NA, due to the Arab League's ethnic cleansing of Jews from their many nations.
> 
> If Israeli teams play in Euro leagues - it's mostly because the Arab League nations  have acted as a bloc, to block participation by Israelis as part of their ongoing boycott - which began in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original settlers were European and they set forth how Israel would be governed the type of society it would be and in this implemented European style system, it is what they knew and were.  It doesn't matter that later, immigrants came from outside Europe. The die was cast and today Israel is very similar to Europe.
> 
> It's not just the membership in UEFA, they are the only non-European country in European organizations like CERN,  the European Unions Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development,  the EUs Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System, Euromed Cultural Heritage, FEMISE, ArchiMedes etc.
Click to expand...





 The original Jews were there under sufferance for over 4,000 years, the arab muslims arrived during the 19c as itinerant farm workers looking for work. The Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate to Palestine as the arab muslims refused to stay there long enough to set down roots. The Ottomans allowed the Jews to buy land and to work it unhindered and unarmed. Israel is similar to Europe because Europe is a tried and tested model of democracy and endeavour. Islam is a failed dictatorship that has splintered and became unstable.

 As far as Europe is concerned Israel is part of Europe as it is a European style nation with European standards. Many Americans work in the CERN labs and are also engaged in the development of the Navigation system. The satellite system has been up and running for some years now, and because of it the need for morse code has been dropped for all radio spectrum users. 


 Ask your imam for more up to date information in future as he is feeding you BULLSHIT.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, *OVER HALF * of Jewish Israelis are *not* 'European' by anyone's meaning.  And the bulk of that over half are Sephardi/Mizrachi Jews - from elsewhere in ME/NA, due to the Arab League's ethnic cleansing of Jews from their many nations.
> 
> If Israeli teams play in Euro leagues - it's mostly because the Arab League nations  have acted as a bloc, to block participation by Israelis as part of their ongoing boycott - which began in 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original settlers were European and they set forth how Israel would be governed the type of society it would be and in this implemented European style system, it is what they knew and were.  It doesn't matter that later, immigrants came from outside Europe. The die was cast and today Israel is very similar to Europe.
> 
> It's not just the membership in UEFA, they are the only non-European country in European organizations like CERN,  the European Unions Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development,  the EUs Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System, Euromed Cultural Heritage, FEMISE, ArchiMedes etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original Jews were there under sufferance for over 4,000 years, the arab muslims arrived during the 19c as itinerant farm workers looking for work. The Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate to Palestine as the arab muslims refused to stay there long enough to set down roots. The Ottomans allowed the Jews to buy land and to work it unhindered and unarmed. Israel is similar to Europe because Europe is a tried and tested model of democracy and endeavour. Islam is a failed dictatorship that has splintered and became unstable.
> 
> As far as Europe is concerned Israel is part of Europe as it is a European style nation with European standards. Many Americans work in the CERN labs and are also engaged in the development of the Navigation system. The satellite system has been up and running for some years now, and because of it the need for morse code has been dropped for all radio spectrum users.
> 
> 
> Ask your imam for more up to date information in future as he is feeding you BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...


Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original settlers were European and they set forth how Israel would be governed the type of society it would be and in this implemented European style system, it is what they knew and were.  It doesn't matter that later, immigrants came from outside Europe. The die was cast and today Israel is very similar to Europe.
> 
> It's not just the membership in UEFA, they are the only non-European country in European organizations like CERN,  the European Unions Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development,  the EUs Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System, Euromed Cultural Heritage, FEMISE, ArchiMedes etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original Jews were there under sufferance for over 4,000 years, the arab muslims arrived during the 19c as itinerant farm workers looking for work. The Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate to Palestine as the arab muslims refused to stay there long enough to set down roots. The Ottomans allowed the Jews to buy land and to work it unhindered and unarmed. Israel is similar to Europe because Europe is a tried and tested model of democracy and endeavour. Islam is a failed dictatorship that has splintered and became unstable.
> 
> As far as Europe is concerned Israel is part of Europe as it is a European style nation with European standards. Many Americans work in the CERN labs and are also engaged in the development of the Navigation system. The satellite system has been up and running for some years now, and because of it the need for morse code has been dropped for all radio spectrum users.
> 
> 
> Ask your imam for more up to date information in future as he is feeding you BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
Click to expand...

You may be a genius but you're also a pompous ass. Grow out of it.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Israel, in the real world demographics also change maps.
> 
> 
> 
> You (pro-Palestinian advocates) seem to be operating under the impression that Israel will do nothing while this so-called Demographics Threat unfolds.
> 
> There is no threat from _within_ the present borders of Israel, if one omits the West Bank and Gaza from that definition.
> 
> If Israel decides to complete its Reconquista and annexes the West Bank and/or Gaza in perpetuity, it will forcibly evict and expel the Palestinians and then move Israelis into the vacuum to consolidate those new holdings.
> 
> Thereby removing the Demographics Threat before it ever materializes.
> 
> Encroachment upon the Rump (vestigial, remnant) West Bank continues apace and appears to be accelerating.
> 
> Nobody is going to stop Israel if it _does_ choose to go the Expulsion route; or, should I say, should they openly declare the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure Israel will be able to expel/kill 5-6 million people logistically?...
Click to expand...

Expel, not kill.

Unlike the savages on the Palestinian side who have repeatedly sworn to drown the Jews in the Mediterranean, the Israeli side isn't anywhere near as bloodthirsty as their opponents, and would resort to simple (and far more humane) expulsion.

How to handle the logistics?

On the macro level...

Incrementally.

1. Find a place that will take a certain number; gratis, or for a price.

2. Solicit volunteers to move; including relocation, setup/fresh-startand compensation monies; keeping families together, and all of that.

3. Effect the move; protecting them against Fatah and Hamas vindictiveness along the way.

4. Move Israelis into the vacuum.

5. Rinse and repeat, as often as necessary.

That should take care of a very large percentage.

For those hard-cases who won't go on their own, despite generous settlement funding and relocation assistance - military action - 1% will die - 99% will survive.

The survivors are forcibly relocated, but paid the same Wergeld as all the rest.

No further claims against Israel would then be allowed.

Expensive as hell.

But far cheaper than allowing either an internal military threat or an internal demographics threat to destroy the resurrected State of Israel.



> "..._And, do you think the U.S. would stand by and allow what is perceived its client state by the rest of the world to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing?_..."


Yes.

Because it won't be Genocide.

And even the ethnic cleansing -like aspect(s) of such an operation can be arguably and logically masked as what it truly is: Population Transfer.

Done properly - and faithfully reflecting what is actually happening - the outcome removes a savage, hostile, intransigent and belligerent population segment from the region, and, lacking close proximiity, old enmities will burn themselves out in a generation or two, and a modicum of peace will descend upon the region.



> ..._If the US allowed it to happen, there would be serious negative economic consequences for America. Ever take a look to see how much the U.S. sells to the Muslim world_..."


If we were overly worried about that, we would not have attacked Afghanistan...

If we were overly worried about that, we would not have attacked Iraq...

If we were overly worried about that, we would not be drone-bombing NW Pakistan...

Donor Exhaustion has set in, within the Muslim world, with respect to the Palestinians, and trashing their trade relationships with the US would be Bad Business.



> "..._The UN would impose South Africa style sanctions that the U.S. would not veto_..."


Possible

Unlikely.

If the UN General Assembly failed to override the Security Council (UNGAR 377, 1950) to prevent the United States from launching an attack on Iraq in 2003, it's highly unlikely that it will do so over a progressive but controlled and well-funded and well-compensated mass relocation effort.



> "..._The EU, Israel's biggest trading partner would impose even stricter sanctions_..."


Perhaps.

But unlikely.

Once they see that it is being done as humanely as practicable and that those displaced were being relocated and re-established elsewhere, with some considerable support.

Hell, the Euros are Westerners as well, and will be happy to see an end to this 100-year-old squabbling in their backyard.



> "..._I don't think you have thought this through._"


Well, they say the Devil is in the details, don't they?

A hundred-and-one things to address during the course of any such contemplation, but, done incrementally, it's not only practicable but actually likely.

The logistics and military aspects of the thing are probably the easiest to address, on the macro level.

The real challenges are (1) finding places willing to take-in some percentage of the Palestinians, (2) mustering sufficient financial support for the undertaking from the global Jewish community and its friends, and (3) public relations and damage control once underway.

One need look no further than the non-viable, unsustainable and disconnected (non-contiguous) parcels of land still remaining under Palestinian faux control, to see that we're almost to that point already, and one does not need a crystal ball to predict what the next steps are likely to be, in connection with the foolhardy and intransigent Palestinians, should this next (and final?) round of negotiations collapse.

I have no clue whether any of this is going to materialize, but it is fast reaching the point where the Israelis are going to have to get 'radical', and some-such approach is far more humane than what their enemies have sworn to do to them, given the chance.

Comes a time, every so often, in the life of a nation, when your back is against the wall and you're obliged to say: "_This is what needs to be done. To the Devil with world opinion._"

Now, whether Israel has reached that point yet with its Barbarian negotiating partners, well, only the Israelis can tell us that.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original settlers were European and they set forth how Israel would be governed the type of society it would be and in this implemented European style system, it is what they knew and were.  It doesn't matter that later, immigrants came from outside Europe. The die was cast and today Israel is very similar to Europe.
> 
> It's not just the membership in UEFA, they are the only non-European country in European organizations like CERN,  the European Unions Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development,  the EUs Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System, Euromed Cultural Heritage, FEMISE, ArchiMedes etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original Jews were there under sufferance for over 4,000 years, the arab muslims arrived during the 19c as itinerant farm workers looking for work. The Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate to Palestine as the arab muslims refused to stay there long enough to set down roots. The Ottomans allowed the Jews to buy land and to work it unhindered and unarmed. Israel is similar to Europe because Europe is a tried and tested model of democracy and endeavour. Islam is a failed dictatorship that has splintered and became unstable.
> 
> As far as Europe is concerned Israel is part of Europe as it is a European style nation with European standards. Many Americans work in the CERN labs and are also engaged in the development of the Navigation system. The satellite system has been up and running for some years now, and because of it the need for morse code has been dropped for all radio spectrum users.
> 
> 
> Ask your imam for more up to date information in future as he is feeding you BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
Click to expand...


But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original Jews were there under sufferance for over 4,000 years, the arab muslims arrived during the 19c as itinerant farm workers looking for work. The Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate to Palestine as the arab muslims refused to stay there long enough to set down roots. The Ottomans allowed the Jews to buy land and to work it unhindered and unarmed. Israel is similar to Europe because Europe is a tried and tested model of democracy and endeavour. Islam is a failed dictatorship that has splintered and became unstable.
> 
> As far as Europe is concerned Israel is part of Europe as it is a European style nation with European standards. Many Americans work in the CERN labs and are also engaged in the development of the Navigation system. The satellite system has been up and running for some years now, and because of it the need for morse code has been dropped for all radio spectrum users.
> 
> 
> Ask your imam for more up to date information in future as he is feeding you BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.
Click to expand...


When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.  

There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:

"The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*

*The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. - 

See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
Click to expand...


Strange then that foreign visitors to the Holy Land years before saw very few Arabs, mainly Bedouins.  I wonder where all these Arabs were hiding out.  As an aside, I find it amazing how these boiler room people such as Haniya and her sidekick Defeat67 get on this forum and are here all day long along of course with the other forums they are on.  They are so devoted to their cause of trying to get the readers to believe that the Jews have no right to govern Israel because all that land in the Middle East should really be governed by the Muslims.   I hope they have time to take a coffee break now and then.  Meanwhile, they apparently have no interest in what is going on in the rest of the Middle East no matter how many people are killed.  The rest of the Middle East is governed by Muslims and they can't blame the Israelis for what is going on.  Say, speaking of Christians, has anyone seen Haniya and her sidekick Defeat67 talk about the Christians being afforded a better life in the rest of the Muslim world without these unfortunate Christians being harassed and murdered and their churches destroyed.

Jews to no one's land


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange then that foreign visitors to the Holy Land years before saw very few Arabs, mainly Bedouins.  I wonder where all these Arabs were hiding out.  As an aside, I find it amazing how these boiler room people such as Haniya and her sidekick Defeat67 get on this forum and are here all day long along of course with the other forums they are on.  They are so devoted to their cause of trying to get the readers to believe that the Jews have no right to govern Israel because all that land in the Middle East should really be governed by the Muslims.   I hope they have time to take a coffee break now and then.  Meanwhile, they apparently have no interest in what is going on in the rest of the Middle East no matter how many people are killed.  The rest of the Middle East is governed by Muslims and they can't blame the Israelis for what is going on.  Say, speaking of Christians, has anyone seen Haniya and her sidekick Defeat67 talk about the Christians being afforded a better life in the rest of the Muslim world without these unfortunate Christians being harassed and murdered and their churches destroyed.
> 
> Jews to no one's land
Click to expand...


Of course I contribute to threads on forums that discuss the oppression of Christians, which are I may add, the most oppressed people in the world.  You are a little deranged, I'm afraid.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
Click to expand...

See more at Exodus 19:1-6


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See more at Exodus 19:1-6
Click to expand...


Gee,  never thought you could be a Bible Thumper, Hoss...How about John:3-16, and all that good stuff about peace?

Ya'll got to stop reading that Old Testament it is full of violence and hate...Read the New Testament. Its full of love.


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> 
> 
> See more at Exodus 19:1-6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee,  never thought you could be a Bible Thumper, Hoss...How about John:3-16, and all that good stuff about peace?
> 
> Ya'll got to stop reading that Old Testament it is full of violence and hate...Read the New Testament. Its full of love.
Click to expand...

Not a Bible thumper. Ex. 19:1-6 lays out the ground rules.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> More failure from Billo the lying propagandist!
> All you showed me was a couple of skirmishes between Jordan and Israel BEFORE the war started in June. LOL . Nice try. Would you like to try again??


No need.  

Those weren't just "skirmishes", that was Israel attacking Jordan, after you claimed...











toastman said:


> As for you last paragraph and statement, you made absolutely no sense. Jordan joined the war that was between Israel and Egypt . It had nothing to do with Jordan. You always complain that 'Israel attacked first', well Jordqn attacked Israel in this case. Such a simple concept, yet you can't even comprehend it.
> Lol that was fun!


Hey dude, you're the one who brought Jordan into the conversation between Israel and Egypt, not me.

I was saying Israel started the war when it sent its tanks into Egypt and you shot back with...








At least have the balls to own up to the things you say.


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More failure from Billo the lying propagandist!
> All you showed me was a couple of skirmishes between Jordan and Israel BEFORE the war started in June. LOL . Nice try. Would you like to try again??
> 
> 
> 
> No need.
> 
> Those weren't just "skirmishes", that was Israel attacking Jordan, after you claimed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for you last paragraph and statement, you made absolutely no sense. Jordan joined the war that was between Israel and Egypt . It had nothing to do with Jordan. You always complain that 'Israel attacked first', well Jordqn attacked Israel in this case. Such a simple concept, yet you can't even comprehend it.
> Lol that was fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dude, you're the one who brought Jordan into the conversation between Israel and Egypt, not me.
> 
> I was saying Israel started the war when it sent its tanks into Egypt and you shot back with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least have the balls to own up to the things you say.
Click to expand...

You're projecting again, Billo. Go soak your head and calm down.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> You're projecting again, Billo. Go soak your head and calm down.


What am I projecting?

Are you saying *toasty* didn't say that?


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More failure from Billo the lying propagandist!
> All you showed me was a couple of skirmishes between Jordan and Israel BEFORE the war started in June. LOL . Nice try. Would you like to try again??
> 
> 
> 
> No need.
> 
> Those weren't just "skirmishes", that was Israel attacking Jordan, after you claimed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for you last paragraph and statement, you made absolutely no sense. Jordan joined the war that was between Israel and Egypt . It had nothing to do with Jordan. You always complain that 'Israel attacked first', well Jordqn attacked Israel in this case. Such a simple concept, yet you can't even comprehend it.
> Lol that was fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dude, you're the one who brought Jordan into the conversation between Israel and Egypt, not me.
> 
> I was saying Israel started the war when it sent its tanks into Egypt and you shot back with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least have the balls to own up to the things you say.
Click to expand...


Jordan attacked Israel first DURING THE 6 day war. In other words, Jordan entered the war on their own means.
How you didn't manage to understand that is beyond me , Billo.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More failure from Billo the lying propagandist!
> All you showed me was a couple of skirmishes between Jordan and Israel BEFORE the war started in June. LOL . Nice try. Would you like to try again??
> 
> 
> 
> No need.
> 
> Those weren't just "skirmishes", that was Israel attacking Jordan, after you claimed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for you last paragraph and statement, you made absolutely no sense. Jordan joined the war that was between Israel and Egypt . It had nothing to do with Jordan. You always complain that 'Israel attacked first', well Jordqn attacked Israel in this case. Such a simple concept, yet you can't even comprehend it.
> Lol that was fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dude, you're the one who brought Jordan into the conversation between Israel and Egypt, not me.
> 
> I was saying Israel started the war when it sent its tanks into Egypt and you shot back with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least have the balls to own up to the things you say.
Click to expand...


Also, you always mention Israel doing this and that, but you never mention why they do it Billo.

Do you thing the IDF commanders wake up in the morning and say" hey, lets go shoot mortars at Jordan for absolutely no reason at all"


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Also, you always mention Israel doing this and that, but you never mention why they do it Billo.
> 
> Do you thing the IDF commanders wake up in the morning and say" hey, lets go shoot mortars at Jordan for absolutely no reason at all"


The "why", was stated in the link I provided.

Israel wanted the land and the water.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Jordan attacked Israel first DURING THE 6 day war. In other words, Jordan entered the war on their own means.
> How you didn't manage to understand that is beyond me , Billo.


The discussion was regarding who started the 6 Day War and you shot back with...

_*"Jordan attacked first..."​*_Back-peddle all you want, it won't change what you said.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, they did.  You are making arbitrary requirements so as to fit your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel declared independence on the land allotted to it in the partition plan. We've been through this many times Tinmore.
> 
> The Armistice agreements, which you CONSTANTLY bring up, have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed the land or recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Declaration of Independence clearly states it coordinated with the UNPC in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The border dispute arose after the Invasion and External Interference of the Arab League.  The resulting tactical military outcome changed some of the territorial controls.
Click to expand...

We have all heard a gazillion times that Israel accepted resolution 181 and the Palestinians rejected it. It is true that the Palestinians rejected the partition of their country as they had the right to do and as anyone else in the world would have done.

However, let's look at Israel's so called acceptance.

1) Israel rejected the proposed borders and was attacking and expelling Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.

2) Israel rejected an international Jerusalem by attacking and expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem before its declaration.

3) Israel rejected the rights of the non Jewish population by attacking the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.​So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?



> *(SIDEBAR) *
> 
> You periodically make these claims as if there is some substance to them.  You overlook the point that the Arab Armies conspired to attack Israel even before it was proclaimed. It was an effort, by the Arabs, to use force (right of conquest) to attain control of territory the UN said was Partitioned.  The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law.   And they now live with the outcome of that set of decisions.
> 
> You cannot set your own criteria - under your agenda - and demand that - a half century after the fact, they be met.  The Arab League Armies crossed their borders, invading the Partitioned Territory, and openly attacked the Jewish Nation in order to overturn the establishment of Israel.  Remembering that Israel was established in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence set by the UN.   The Arabs attempted to overturn by force, the right of self-determination exercised by the Israeli People.  The Arabs were the aggressor, the external interference, and the territorial invader; leaving their sovereignty and entering another.  They couldn't have been more in the wrong then if they were an Axis Power.
> 
> The concept of inalienable national rights of the people applies equally as well to the Jewish People as it does to the Palestinian People.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Snouter

Hossfly said:


> See more at Exodus 19:1-6



Do you have any idea where Mount Sinai is?  It's not anywhere near where zionists are currently occupying land.  

But that brings up one of the many inconsistencies and lies in the Old Testament.  Yahweh said he was from Egypt in Hos. 12:9  and says he was from Sinai in Deut. 33:2.


----------



## Snouter

pbel said:


> Ya'll got to stop reading that Old Testament it is full of violence and hate...Read the New Testament. Its full of love.



Not sure if you are serious, but reread the material again.  The Yahweh monster invented death as punishment from Adam and Eve indirectly worshiping the Goddess according to the Old Testament.  But the Jesus monster invented eternal torture in a BBQ for not believing he was the messiah to help the folks from the tribe of Judah overthrow Rome.


----------



## Phoenall

Snouter said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya'll got to stop reading that Old Testament it is full of violence and hate...Read the New Testament. Its full of love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you are serious, but reread the material again.  The Yahweh monster invented death as punishment from Adam and Eve indirectly worshiping the Goddess according to the Old Testament.  But the Jesus monster invented eternal torture in a BBQ for not believing he was the messiah to help the folks from the tribe of Judah overthrow Rome.
Click to expand...






 Maybe you should be the one to read the scriptures a little bit more, as no Hell is mentioned by Jesus at all. That is a construct of the Catholic church to enslave the people even more.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original settlers were European and they set forth how Israel would be governed the type of society it would be and in this implemented European style system, it is what they knew and were.  It doesn't matter that later, immigrants came from outside Europe. The die was cast and today Israel is very similar to Europe.
> 
> It's not just the membership in UEFA, they are the only non-European country in European organizations like CERN,  the European Unions Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development,  the EUs Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System, Euromed Cultural Heritage, FEMISE, ArchiMedes etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original Jews were there under sufferance for over 4,000 years, the arab muslims arrived during the 19c as itinerant farm workers looking for work. The Ottomans invited European Jews to migrate to Palestine as the arab muslims refused to stay there long enough to set down roots. The Ottomans allowed the Jews to buy land and to work it unhindered and unarmed. Israel is similar to Europe because Europe is a tried and tested model of democracy and endeavour. Islam is a failed dictatorship that has splintered and became unstable.
> 
> As far as Europe is concerned Israel is part of Europe as it is a European style nation with European standards. Many Americans work in the CERN labs and are also engaged in the development of the Navigation system. The satellite system has been up and running for some years now, and because of it the need for morse code has been dropped for all radio spectrum users.
> 
> 
> Ask your imam for more up to date information in future as he is feeding you BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
Click to expand...





 Maybe you should take remedial English little boy, the arab muslims forced Israel into joining the European groups and are now seeing they have done the wrong thing. Imagine how strong the arabs would be if they had welcomed the Jews instead of trying to eradicate them. How they would have benefitted from the massive leaps in the field of medicine and computer engineering, instead of being 20 years behind the rest of the world. 

 So once again your fellow ISLAMONAZI's have missed a chance to be better because of RELIGOUS and RACIST hatreds.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have actually read what I wrote? You are agreeing with me.  You are so wrapped up in hate and anger you can't think or comprehend what is being written.  Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you and those in the boiled room are so wrapped up trying to show that the land actually belongs to the Arabs that you really appear like a bunch of Energizer Bunnies who are charged up each morning when you enter the boiler room and told to set forth on as many forums as you can get to all day long..  I guess the boiler room gals and guys can't stand to see the Jews governing one tiny, tiny piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, it's a shame that the rest of the Middle East countries weren't more like European countries so that they would be more advanced instead of being the way they are now.  Can you imagine how those Bedouin (which early travelers to the Holy Land saw) lived before the Jews made that swamp land livable?  The only places that looked livable were the cities where the Jews resided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
Click to expand...





 Don't you bother reading the links provided that show the Christians and the Jews were enslaved by the muslims. How the laws of dhimma made their very existence hell, with murders and rapes being commonplace. How the muslims could murder the father of a girl they wanted as a sex slave with complete immunity from any prosecution. How the dhimmis were beaten when they attended the local jizya office to pay their protection momey. They were allowed a tiny part of religious freedom as long as it was behind closed doors and in secret. No repairs to their homes or religious buildings, no new ones to rise above the height of the lowest muslim one. No weapons allowed, no fighting any wars unless they converted first. No horses only asses and donkeys, no white clothing and distinguishing marks on the clothes they were allowed to wear. That was the fate under Islamic rule for Christians and Jews.


 Now go and read a non ISLAMONAZI or ANTISEMITIC JEW HATRED report of the reality of Palestine, and how the ottomans begged the Jews of Europe to colonise the land and make it fertile because the muslims were not capable of doing so.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I said the land belongs to the "Arabs".  I have said that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine that were not evicted from their homes and land should be afforded a decent life and should not be held under occupation.
> 
> There were hardly any Jews to populate these cities you speak of, before 1850 Palestine had only a "handful" of Jews according to the British Interim Report of the Mandatory, and I quote:
> 
> "The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race*. *Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.*
> 
> *The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. *In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. -
> 
> See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange then that foreign visitors to the Holy Land years before saw very few Arabs, mainly Bedouins.  I wonder where all these Arabs were hiding out.  As an aside, I find it amazing how these boiler room people such as Haniya and her sidekick Defeat67 get on this forum and are here all day long along of course with the other forums they are on.  They are so devoted to their cause of trying to get the readers to believe that the Jews have no right to govern Israel because all that land in the Middle East should really be governed by the Muslims.   I hope they have time to take a coffee break now and then.  Meanwhile, they apparently have no interest in what is going on in the rest of the Middle East no matter how many people are killed.  The rest of the Middle East is governed by Muslims and they can't blame the Israelis for what is going on.  Say, speaking of Christians, has anyone seen Haniya and her sidekick Defeat67 talk about the Christians being afforded a better life in the rest of the Muslim world without these unfortunate Christians being harassed and murdered and their churches destroyed.
> 
> Jews to no one's land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I contribute to threads on forums that discuss the oppression of Christians, which are I may add, the most oppressed people in the world.  You are a little deranged, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...





 Yes they are and the evidence points to the muslims being the greatest offenders of this oppression. In gaza alone the Christian population has declined due to the oppression by the muslim extremists and ethnic cleansing.  Do you discuss that or do you band the muslim drum and claim it is all down to the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, they did.  You are making arbitrary requirements so as to fit your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed the land or recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Declaration of Independence clearly states it coordinated with the UNPC in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The border dispute arose after the Invasion and External Interference of the Arab League.  The resulting tactical military outcome changed some of the territorial controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have all heard a gazillion times that Israel accepted resolution 181 and the Palestinians rejected it. It is true that the Palestinians rejected the partition of their country as they had the right to do and as anyone else in the world would have done.
> 
> However, let's look at Israel's so called acceptance.
> 
> 1) Israel rejected the proposed borders and was attacking and expelling Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 2) Israel rejected an international Jerusalem by attacking and expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem before its declaration.
> 
> 3) Israel rejected the rights of the non Jewish population by attacking the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.​So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(SIDEBAR) *
> 
> You periodically make these claims as if there is some substance to them.  You overlook the point that the Arab Armies conspired to attack Israel even before it was proclaimed. It was an effort, by the Arabs, to use force (right of conquest) to attain control of territory the UN said was Partitioned.  The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law.   And they now live with the outcome of that set of decisions.
> 
> You cannot set your own criteria - under your agenda - and demand that - a half century after the fact, they be met.  The Arab League Armies crossed their borders, invading the Partitioned Territory, and openly attacked the Jewish Nation in order to overturn the establishment of Israel.  Remembering that Israel was established in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence set by the UN.   The Arabs attempted to overturn by force, the right of self-determination exercised by the Israeli People.  The Arabs were the aggressor, the external interference, and the territorial invader; leaving their sovereignty and entering another.  They couldn't have been more in the wrong then if they were an Axis Power.
> 
> The concept of inalienable national rights of the people applies equally as well to the Jewish People as it does to the Palestinian People.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





 1) arab muslims had also rejected the borders, and in fact rejected the whole resolution. In doing so they also broke treaties that had been signed years earlier giving them trans Jordan and Syria. They had been attacking the Jews since 632 C.E. and expelling them from their land in Palestine.

 2) arab muslims rejected an international Jerusalem by attacking and murdering jews that lived there contrary to the UN charter. They then declared Jerusalem a muslim city and started to remove all traces of Judaism from it.

 3) arab muslims rejected the rights of the Jewish population by attacking the Jews  in Palestine and claiming to want to wipe them all out.


 So what did the arab muslims do to honour their treaties and UN res 181


----------



## MrMax

^^^^^^^^ The tin hypocrite is still going on about meaningless pieces of paper that musbombs can't even read? 

Brah, should we just give them blankets with smallpox on them like your ancestors did to the indians?


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan attacked Israel first DURING THE 6 day war. In other words, Jordan entered the war on their own means.
> How you didn't manage to understand that is beyond me , Billo.
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion was regarding who started the 6 Day War and you shot back with...
> 
> _*"Jordan attacked first..."​*_Back-peddle all you want, it won't change what you said.
Click to expand...


Yes, and they DID attack first during the 6 day war, which you said was not true.

But I proved to you that it WAS true. I cant believe I have to explain this to you!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, they did.  You are making arbitrary requirements so as to fit your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never claimed the land or recognized the proposed borders of resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Declaration of Independence clearly states it coordinated with the UNPC in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The border dispute arose after the Invasion and External Interference of the Arab League.  The resulting tactical military outcome changed some of the territorial controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have all heard a gazillion times that Israel accepted resolution 181 and the Palestinians rejected it. It is true that the Palestinians rejected the partition of their country as they had the right to do and as anyone else in the world would have done.
> 
> However, let's look at Israel's so called acceptance.
> 
> 1) Israel rejected the proposed borders and was attacking and expelling Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 2) Israel rejected an international Jerusalem by attacking and expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem before its declaration.
> 
> 3) Israel rejected the rights of the non Jewish population by attacking the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.​So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(SIDEBAR) *
> 
> You periodically make these claims as if there is some substance to them.  You overlook the point that the Arab Armies conspired to attack Israel even before it was proclaimed. It was an effort, by the Arabs, to use force (right of conquest) to attain control of territory the UN said was Partitioned.  The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law.   And they now live with the outcome of that set of decisions.
> 
> You cannot set your own criteria - under your agenda - and demand that - a half century after the fact, they be met.  The Arab League Armies crossed their borders, invading the Partitioned Territory, and openly attacked the Jewish Nation in order to overturn the establishment of Israel.  Remembering that Israel was established in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence set by the UN.   The Arabs attempted to overturn by force, the right of self-determination exercised by the Israeli People.  The Arabs were the aggressor, the external interference, and the territorial invader; leaving their sovereignty and entering another.  They couldn't have been more in the wrong then if they were an Axis Power.
> 
> The concept of inalienable national rights of the people applies equally as well to the Jewish People as it does to the Palestinian People.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Please show us a link of the attacks against the Palestinians you are talking about.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, they did.  You are making arbitrary requirements so as to fit your agenda.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Declaration of Independence clearly states it coordinated with the UNPC in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 181(II).   The border dispute arose after the Invasion and External Interference of the Arab League.  The resulting tactical military outcome changed some of the territorial controls.
> 
> 
> 
> We have all heard a gazillion times that Israel accepted resolution 181 and the Palestinians rejected it. It is true that the Palestinians rejected the partition of their country as they had the right to do and as anyone else in the world would have done.
> 
> However, let's look at Israel's so called acceptance.
> 
> 1) Israel rejected the proposed borders and was attacking and expelling Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 2) Israel rejected an international Jerusalem by attacking and expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem before its declaration.
> 
> 3) Israel rejected the rights of the non Jewish population by attacking the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.​So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(SIDEBAR) *
> 
> You periodically make these claims as if there is some substance to them.  You overlook the point that the Arab Armies conspired to attack Israel even before it was proclaimed. It was an effort, by the Arabs, to use force (right of conquest) to attain control of territory the UN said was Partitioned.  The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law.   And they now live with the outcome of that set of decisions.
> 
> You cannot set your own criteria - under your agenda - and demand that - a half century after the fact, they be met.  The Arab League Armies crossed their borders, invading the Partitioned Territory, and openly attacked the Jewish Nation in order to overturn the establishment of Israel.  Remembering that Israel was established in accordance with the steps preparatory to independence set by the UN.   The Arabs attempted to overturn by force, the right of self-determination exercised by the Israeli People.  The Arabs were the aggressor, the external interference, and the territorial invader; leaving their sovereignty and entering another.  They couldn't have been more in the wrong then if they were an Axis Power.
> 
> The concept of inalienable national rights of the people applies equally as well to the Jewish People as it does to the Palestinian People.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show us a link of the attacks against the Palestinians you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Note the date they left their home in West Jerusalem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd2fdoJxCcw]A Palestian talks about the Nakba -1/4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## toastman

I didnt ask for a video Tinmore. 
She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.


----------



## montelatici

*The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law. *

The non-Jews, which included Christians, chose to seek help from fellow non-Jews to see if they could prevent being dispossessed of their homes and lands.  They would have been dispossessed either way, so this was a desperate attempt to prevent a continuation of rule by Europeans, when they had been promised independence.

Just as you can't criticize the native americans for at least attempting to resist the settlement and rule by Europeans in North America, you can't criticize the non-Jews for resisting settlement by and rule of Europeans in Palestine.  Nor can you criticize their continued resistance, it is what any people would do.  

Whether their resistance will result in eventual freedom, who knows?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> I didnt ask for a video Tinmore.
> She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.



Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.

Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hossfly

Snouter said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> See more at Exodus 19:1-6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea where Mount Sinai is?  It's not anywhere near where zionists are currently occupying land.
> 
> But that brings up one of the many inconsistencies and lies in the Old Testament.  Yahweh said he was from Egypt in Hos. 12:9  and says he was from Sinai in Deut. 33:2.
Click to expand...

The passages I noted were about who owned the earth and the disposition of the property rights. Not about a geography lesson. You continue to project.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt ask for a video Tinmore.
> She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So what's the problem? Cleared the place of carpet kissing morons. Isn't that a good thing? 

They could have given the arabs some smallpox infested blankets like your ancestors gave the indians. Is that what you'd prefer?


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan attacked Israel first DURING THE 6 day war. In other words, Jordan entered the war on their own means.
> How you didn't manage to understand that is beyond me , Billo.
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion was regarding who started the 6 Day War and you shot back with...
> 
> _*"Jordan attacked first..."​*_Back-peddle all you want, it won't change what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and they DID attack first during the 6 day war, which you said was not true.
> 
> But I proved to you that it WAS true. I cant believe I have to explain this to you!
Click to expand...

The Egyptians closed the straights of Tiran.

The Egyptians massed troops and war-assets alongside their border with Israel.

The Syrians massed troops and war-assets alongside their border with Israel.

The Jordanians massed troops and war-assets alongside their border with Israel.

The Egyptian President publicly declared his intention to attack and destroy Israel.

The Israelis hit the Egyptians and Syrians before they could strike at Israel.

The Jordanians sat out the first day.

The Israelis pleaded with the Jordanians on Day One not to join in the attack.

The Jordanian king replied that it was too late - that the die was cast.

The Jordanians joined the attack on Day Two, striking Israel first.

The Jordanians did, indeed, attack Israel first.

This is a well-documented historic fact, and not a matter for debate.

Unless there is an _Alternate Reality_ explanation that hasn't come up on my scope yet.


----------



## Hossfly

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion was regarding who started the 6 Day War and you shot back with...
> 
> _*"Jordan attacked first..."​*_Back-peddle all you want, it won't change what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they DID attack first during the 6 day war, which you said was not true.
> 
> But I proved to you that it WAS true. I cant believe I have to explain this to you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Egyptians closed the straights of Tiran.
> 
> The Egyptians massed troops and war-assets alongside their border with Israel.
> 
> The Syrians massed troops and war-assets alongside their border with Israel.
> 
> The Jordanians massed troops and war-assets alongside their border with Israel.
> 
> The Egyptian President publicly declared his intention to attack and destroy Israel.
> 
> The Israelis hit the Egyptians and Syrians before they could strike at Israel.
> 
> The Jordanians sat out the first day.
> 
> The Israelis pleaded with the Jordanians on Day One not to join in the attack.
> 
> The Jordanian king replied that it was too late - that the die was cast.
> 
> The Jordanians joined the attack on Day Two, striking Israel first.
> 
> The Jordanians did, indeed, attack Israel first.
> 
> This is a well-documented historic fact, and not a matter for debate.
> 
> Unless there is an _Alternate Reality_ explanation that hasn't come up on my scope yet.
Click to expand...

The reality for Billo is to take woulda-shoulda-coulda and turn them into facts and believe it.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have all heard a gazillion times that Israel accepted resolution 181 and the Palestinians rejected it. It is true that the Palestinians rejected the partition of their country as they had the right to do and as anyone else in the world would have done.
> 
> However, let's look at Israel's so called acceptance.
> 
> 1) Israel rejected the proposed borders and was attacking and expelling Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.
> 
> 2) Israel rejected an international Jerusalem by attacking and expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem before its declaration.
> 
> 3) Israel rejected the rights of the non Jewish population by attacking the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.​So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us a link of the attacks against the Palestinians you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the date they left their home in West Jerusalem.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd2fdoJxCcw]A Palestian talks about the Nakba -1/4 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...





 AND she says it was in April, she also says that they were told it would only be for a short time before they could return victorious. Now what does this tell us about the likes of her family leaving Jerusalem, because to me it says that they left under their own volition with the promise of returning shortly once the Jews had been killed. So why didn't her family return to their home in 1949 after the Jews had been beaten back and evicted from the west bank and Jerusalem. What crime had they committed that stopped them from returning.

 By the way it proves nothing of your alleged attacks on arab muslims by the Jews, just that arab muslims left willingly and hoped to return. It also tells of the Jews willingness to fight the arab invaders when they did attack, and that they were prepared to evict those arabs that were involved in the upcoming attack on the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> *The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law. *
> 
> The non-Jews, which included Christians, chose to seek help from fellow non-Jews to see if they could prevent being dispossessed of their homes and lands.  They would have been dispossessed either way, so this was a desperate attempt to prevent a continuation of rule by Europeans, when they had been promised independence.
> 
> Just as you can't criticize the native americans for at least attempting to resist the settlement and rule by Europeans in North America, you can't criticize the non-Jews for resisting settlement by and rule of Europeans in Palestine.  Nor can you criticize their continued resistance, it is what any people would do.
> 
> Whether their resistance will result in eventual freedom, who knows?






 So you sanction the colonisation of the Americas and Africa by Europeans who came uninvited. But are dead set against the Jews from Europe returning to their homeland invited by the legal owners of the land. The Jews brought European methods with them that have led to a much greater level of achievement, and you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS are upset at being left behind once again.

 As I have shown the non Jews were offered full Israeli citizenship if they wanted it, those that have stayed are now better of than any other group in the M.E.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Arab chose invasion and war; discarding the Rule of Law. *
> 
> The non-Jews, which included Christians, chose to seek help from fellow non-Jews to see if they could prevent being dispossessed of their homes and lands.  They would have been dispossessed either way, so this was a desperate attempt to prevent a continuation of rule by Europeans, when they had been promised independence.
> 
> Just as you can't criticize the native americans for at least attempting to resist the settlement and rule by Europeans in North America, you can't criticize the non-Jews for resisting settlement by and rule of Europeans in Palestine.  Nor can you criticize their continued resistance, it is what any people would do.
> 
> Whether their resistance will result in eventual freedom, who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you sanction the colonisation of the Americas and Africa by Europeans who came uninvited. But are dead set against the Jews from Europe returning to their homeland invited by the legal owners of the land. The Jews brought European methods with them that have led to a much greater level of achievement, and you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS are upset at being left behind once again.
> 
> As I have shown the non Jews were offered full Israeli citizenship if they wanted it, those that have stayed are now better of than any other group in the M.E.
Click to expand...


* So you sanction the colonisation of the Americas and Africa by Europeans*

How do you derive that from my post?  No, I do not sanction the settlement of the Americas or the colonization of Africa by the Europeans.  In the case of the Americas, the Europeans were able to eliminate most of the indigenous population through genocide and resettlement in reservations, so there is very little that can be done to redress the destruction.  The Africans were able to resist and are now free of European rule.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt ask for a video Tinmore.
> She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




 So what the inhabitants were known to be involved in the war on the Jews so they were evicted from Jewish land. They were not shot and raped like many who opposed Islams land thefts and violence.

 Now produce evidence of specific attacks and dates from months before the invasion by arab muslims, were Jews attacked innocent people and shot them to clear the land for an upcoming Jewish invasion.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt ask for a video Tinmore.
> She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore. 
Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this time, but because you are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt ask for a video Tinmore.
> She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore. Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this tine, but be ause yiu are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.
Click to expand...

Strange, how that works, isn't it?


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt ask for a video Tinmore.
> She me a link that documented the specific attack and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore.
> Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this time, but because you are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.
Click to expand...


And, your ilk would have us believe that the Jews were peaceful little kittens being attacked by the evil Moooooooooslims and Xtians.  You people are hilarious. the fact is, Irgun and Haganah began ethnically cleansing Palestine of non-Jews long before any Arab attack.


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore.
> Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this time, but because you are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, your ilk would have us believe that the Jews were peaceful little kittens being attacked by the evil Moooooooooslims and Xtians.  You people are hilarious. the fact is, Irgun and Haganah began ethnically cleansing Palestine of non-Jews long before any Arab attack.
Click to expand...


The real fact is that people have been fighting over that patch of land for millennia. You just can't handle that the Jews won this round, maybe forever.


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore.
> Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this time, but because you are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, your ilk would have us believe that the Jews were peaceful little kittens being attacked by the evil Moooooooooslims and Xtians.  You people are hilarious. the fact is, Irgun and Haganah began ethnically cleansing Palestine of non-Jews long before any Arab attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real fact is that people have been fighting over that patch of land for millennia. You just can't handle that the Jews won this round, maybe forever.
Click to expand...


Depending on their choices, within the next 3-5 decades, the Jews of Palestine will end up like the whites of Rhodesia or the whites of South Africa.  But they will not be able to subjugate a population larger than their own for the long term.


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, your ilk would have us believe that the Jews were peaceful little kittens being attacked by the evil Moooooooooslims and Xtians.  You people are hilarious. the fact is, Irgun and Haganah began ethnically cleansing Palestine of non-Jews long before any Arab attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real fact is that people have been fighting over that patch of land for millennia. You just can't handle that the Jews won this round, maybe forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on their choices, within the next 3-5 decades, the Jews of Palestine will end up like the whites of Rhodesia or the whites of South Africa.  But they will not be able to subjugate a population larger than their own for the long term.
Click to expand...


They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them. 

I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real fact is that people have been fighting over that patch of land for millennia. You just can't handle that the Jews won this round, maybe forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on their choices, within the next 3-5 decades, the Jews of Palestine will end up like the whites of Rhodesia or the whites of South Africa.  But they will not be able to subjugate a population larger than their own for the long term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
Click to expand...


Well, that being the case, Israel has nothing to worry about. Why do you bother.


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real fact is that people have been fighting over that patch of land for millennia. You just can't handle that the Jews won this round, maybe forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on their choices, within the next 3-5 decades, the Jews of Palestine will end up like the whites of Rhodesia or the whites of South Africa.  But they will not be able to subjugate a population larger than their own for the long term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
Click to expand...

*
they're beating the shit out of them.*

Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.


----------



## aris2chat

Plan of partition is not the same as final borders or even ceasefire lines.
Arabs refused the planned partition lines and statehood for the palestinians.  They have lost some eight wars with Israel.  Maybe if they stop trying to exterminate Israel and devote themselves to peace they would have had a state by now.  The more Israel is threatened, the more Israel needs to establish secure borders to protect it's people.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on their choices, within the next 3-5 decades, the Jews of Palestine will end up like the whites of Rhodesia or the whites of South Africa.  But they will not be able to subjugate a population larger than their own for the long term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
Click to expand...


Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
Click to expand...


You really, really hate those Moooooooooslims, don't you. Go girl.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Najd (Arabic: &#1606;&#1580;&#1583;*) was a Palestinian Arab village, located 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) northeast of Gaza City. On 13 May 1948, Najd was occupied by the Negev Brigade as part of Operation Barak, and the villagers were expelled[6] and fled to Gaza.
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore.
> Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this time, but because you are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, your ilk would have us believe that the Jews were peaceful little kittens being attacked by the evil Moooooooooslims and Xtians.  You people are hilarious. the fact is, Irgun and Haganah began ethnically cleansing Palestine of non-Jews long before any Arab attack.
Click to expand...

Who is "you people?" Some sort of code speak?


----------



## aris2chat

Snouter said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> See more at Exodus 19:1-6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea where Mount Sinai is?  It's not anywhere near where zionists are currently occupying land.
> 
> But that brings up one of the many inconsistencies and lies in the Old Testament.  Yahweh said he was from Egypt in Hos. 12:9  and says he was from Sinai in Deut. 33:2.
Click to expand...


South east of Eilat in Saudi


----------



## Statistikhengst

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened during the Mandatory Palestine Civil war Tinmore.
> Palestinian Arab attacked and killed Jews as well during this time, but because you are an expert propagandist, you make it seem like it was ONLY Jews attacking Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, your ilk would have us believe that the Jews were peaceful little kittens being attacked by the evil Moooooooooslims and Xtians.  You people are hilarious. the fact is, Irgun and Haganah began ethnically cleansing Palestine of non-Jews long before any Arab attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "you people?" Some sort of code speak?
Click to expand...



Oh, I think Montelaci is referring to people of good will and with brains on their shoulders, who don't like the bullshit he is trying to feed us. So, rejoice at being one of "you people", Hossfly.  Let him flail, he is much more fun that way!!!


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really, really hate those Moooooooooslims, don't you. Go girl.
Click to expand...


I guess Haniya and her sidekick in the boiler room, Defeat67, sreally must hate the Jooos if all they do all day long is run around the Internet demonizing Israel in God only knows how many forums.  Yes, Haniya and her sidekick really feel bad for those unfortunate Black Muslim women living in tents in a refugee camp in Chad because of the lighter-skinned Arab Muslims.  My goodness, it took a group of Jewish women from Los Angeles to bring these Black Muslim women solar cookers so that they wouldn't have to wander away from the camps to look for cooking fuel where they stood a good chance of being attacked.  You go Haniya and Defeat67.  Show us how much you care about the Blacks in the world.  Tell us how aghast you are by the Muslim President of the Sudan saying that he doesn't want any Christians or Black tribes in his country.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really, really hate those Moooooooooslims, don't you. Go girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess Haniya and her sidekick in the boiler room, Defeat67, sreally must hate the Jooos if all they do all day long is run around the Internet demonizing Israel in God only knows how many forums.  Yes, Haniya and her sidekick really feel bad for those unfortunate Black Muslim women living in tents in a refugee camp in Chad because of the lighter-skinned Arab Muslims.  *My goodness, it took a group of Jewish women from Los Angeles to bring these Black Muslim women solar cookers so that they wouldn't have to wander away from the camps to look for cooking fuel where they stood a good chance of being attacked.*  You go Haniya and Defeat67.  Show us how much you care about the Blacks in the world.  *Tell us how aghast you are by the Muslim President of the Sudan saying that he doesn't want any Christians or Black tribes in his country.*
Click to expand...


Haniya and Defeat67 just need a good, heaping portion of Tikkun Olam in their lives.

Tikkun Olam, baby, all the way!!!


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
Click to expand...

You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on their choices, within the next 3-5 decades, the Jews of Palestine will end up like the whites of Rhodesia or the whites of South Africa.  But they will not be able to subjugate a population larger than their own for the long term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
Click to expand...


Project much? The Pals are in a war and they're losing badly, reduced to shooting fireworks at Israel. If that's all they've got, they should just surrender. Japan surrendered to the US and now they are very prosperous and a key ally of the US.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not subjugating them, they're beating the shit out of them.
> 
> I'll give the Pals 30 to 50 years to get their shit together. Hell, I'll give them 100 and they still wouldn't be able to do more than make a falafel.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Project much? The Pals are in a war and they're losing badly, reduced to shooting fireworks at Israel. If that's all they've got, they should just surrender. Japan surrendered to the US and now they are very prosperous and a key ally of the US.
Click to expand...


What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the Palestinians are winning.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much? The Pals are in a war and they're losing badly, reduced to shooting fireworks at Israel. If that's all they've got, they should just surrender. Japan surrendered to the US and now they are very prosperous and a key ally of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the *Palestinians are winning*.
Click to expand...


Seriously, isn't it a little early in the day to be drinking? 

They're winning so handily that they keep losing land. 
They should just surrender before things get even worse.


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*

"According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-of-slaves-in-israel-global-study-finds/


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*
> 
> "According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
Click to expand...


Israel if fighting the sex slavery trade.
Prostitution is legal, but not with a pimp.  Women are smuggled into Israel as used as sex slave.  This happens in many western countries as well.  It is illegal, but the women to not speak out of some intimidation or fear of police.  They don't know there are places to seek help.
Compared to the rest of the middle east the number of "slaves" is very low.  Even if legal workers, many arabs take the passports or hold some leverage and treat the worker as a slave.  Then there is also an actual trade sale of humans that goes on in several countries.
In the middle east slavery has been illegal since 1965 (?) but like many illegal things, they still happen.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel's fight against sex trafficking


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much? The Pals are in a war and they're losing badly, reduced to shooting fireworks at Israel. If that's all they've got, they should just surrender. Japan surrendered to the US and now they are very prosperous and a key ally of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the Palestinians are winning.
Click to expand...

Wake me up when all that happy horseshit results in anything worth noting...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> they're beating the shit out of them.*
> 
> Into sadism I see. You are the type that enjoyed watching blacks being lynched. I am not sure who are more disgusting, the Ziofascists or the Islamofascists.  It's a close call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much? The Pals are in a war and they're losing badly, reduced to shooting fireworks at Israel. If that's all they've got, they should just surrender. Japan surrendered to the US and now they are very prosperous and a key ally of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the Palestinians are winning.
Click to expand...


According to the Palestinians, they have been winning since 1948.

If this is what you call winning, I would love to see what you consider losing


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*
> 
> "According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
Click to expand...





 Your own link backfired on you as it has this to say
 Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiYnESmz1Mc&hd=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*
> 
> "According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own link backfired on you as it has this to say
> Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states
Click to expand...


*" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*

Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*
> 
> "According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own link backfired on you as it has this to say
> Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
Click to expand...


Just like that Iranian gang would do -- harping on someone's reading comprehension problem.  Maybe that is the instructions they get from the supervisor in the boilder room.  Meanwhile, I believe it is the Arabs who are bringing in these women to act as prostitutes in Israel.  Say, aren't young Pakistani girls brought into Saudi Arabia during Muslim holidays for the pleasure of those rich guys there?  I wonder what the cut off in age of these young girls these old guys prefer.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*
> 
> "According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own link backfired on you as it has this to say
> Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
Click to expand...


Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.

You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.

Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your own link backfired on you as it has this to say
> Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
> Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
> This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.
> 
> You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.
Click to expand...


Facts are:

Zionutter claims Israel is perfect, no slaves and all Middle eastern countries are massive slave states.

Report shows Israel does have slaves and that several Middle East countries have less of a slave problem than Israel.

Just fact.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
> Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
> This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.
> 
> You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are:
> 
> Zionutter claims Israel is perfect, no slaves and all Middle eastern countries are massive slave states.
> 
> Report shows Israel does have slaves and that several Middle East countries have less of a slave problem than Israel.
> 
> Just fact.
Click to expand...


be glad /Israel is in the lowest 5% there is aways some arrengement to teach the to wrok together and help to change the attitudes .  if there are prositutes that don''t want to leave they must learn no to let someone else to pimp the wormen out.

My imitrex is kicking in.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
> Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
> This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.
> 
> You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are:
> 
> Zionutter claims Israel is perfect, no slaves and all Middle eastern countries are massive slave states.
> 
> Report shows Israel does have slaves and that several Middle East countries have less of a slave problem than Israel.
> 
> Just fact.
Click to expand...

Somebody wake me up when something interesting happens...


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
> Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
> This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.
> 
> You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are:
> 
> Zionutter claims Israel is perfect, no slaves and all Middle eastern countries are massive slave states.
> 
> Report shows Israel does have slaves and that several Middle East countries have less of a slave problem than Israel.
> 
> Just fact.
Click to expand...


Now why don't you show us stats of mass murder, religious killings, torture......


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
> Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
> This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.
> 
> You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are:
> 
> Zionutter claims Israel is perfect, no slaves and all Middle eastern countries are massive slave states.
> 
> Report shows Israel does have slaves and that several Middle East countries have less of a slave problem than Israel.
> 
> Just fact.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone claimed that Israel is perfect because no country is, but you Islamonutters want everyone to think that they did.  Meanwhile, can you give us the statistics of which Muslim countries have committed the most murders against the non-believers?  You can include the Shia and Shiites as non believers.  Each sect seems to believe that the other sect are a bunch of non believers when it comes to Islam so each sect has no problem in blowing up members of the other sect.


----------



## pbel

aris2chat said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, there are only the  Islamofascists who are the ones still using slavery in this modern world.  Would anyone here want to be the Abd of some Muslim who would think nothing of lashing you?  Hmm, wonder if these Islamofascists are still castrating their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Aris, you have been brainwashed...


Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel


*Israel has as many as 8,500 slaves, according to a new comprehensive study of worldwide slavery. Israel placed 111 out of 162 slave-holding countries in the Global Slavery Index 2013, recently published by the Australian Walk Free Foundation. Mauritania was found to have the most serious slavery problem. *Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email 
 and never miss our top stories   Free Sign up!

According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, *though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state.  *


The Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip were not covered by the survey.

Israel did place 


Read more: Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel 
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Project much? The Pals are in a war and they're losing badly, reduced to shooting fireworks at Israel. If that's all they've got, they should just surrender. Japan surrendered to the US and now they are very prosperous and a key ally of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the Palestinians are winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wake me up when all that happy horseshit results in anything worth noting...
Click to expand...


Peace movements in America, South Africa, and of course India have defeated great Armies...When it happens in Palestine, you'll be eating that horseshit...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the Palestinians are winning.
> 
> 
> 
> Wake me up when all that happy horseshit results in anything worth noting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peace movements in America, South Africa, and of course India have defeated great Armies...When it happens in Palestine, you'll be eating that horseshit...
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake me up when all that happy horseshit results in anything worth noting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace movements in America, South Africa, and of course India have defeated great Armies...When it happens in Palestine, you'll be eating that horseshit...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is that you in drag Sir Limp?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace movements in America, South Africa, and of course India have defeated great Armies...When it happens in Palestine, you'll be eating that horseshit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
Click to expand...

Gotta do better than that, sweet checks...

Based on past performance, that seems unlikely...


----------



## aris2chat

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aris, you have been brainwashed...
> 
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> *Israel has as many as 8,500 slaves, according to a new comprehensive study of worldwide slavery. Israel placed 111 out of 162 slave-holding countries in the Global Slavery Index 2013, recently published by the Australian Walk Free Foundation. Mauritania was found to have the most serious slavery problem. *Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
> and never miss our top stories   Free Sign up!
> 
> According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, *though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state.  *
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip were not covered by the survey.
> 
> Israel did place
> 
> 
> Read more: Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Click to expand...


Jewish groups ramp up response to sex trafficking | The Times of Israel

Like mist countries, this is an ongoing process.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds*
> 
> "According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state."
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own link backfired on you as it has this to say
> Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
Click to expand...




 And you semantics don't work as your cherry picked snippet was prefaced by this

*Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East*

 Then this later on

* Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to enjoy a low risk-of-slavery ranking, but still ranked much lower than European states.*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state...."*
> 
> Your reading comprehension problems, or inability to read the whole sentence, causes a massive failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of 160 countries there were 110 countries that had worse levels of slavery.  Egypt and Lebanon were within a half point of Israel.  Egypt generally does not have as many reports, because of culture.  Lebanon has been fighting against worker slavery and child marriage for a long time, going back to the French mandate and the fact it used to be a much higher christian population.  The weight level given was 5.23, not a 98
> Simple number do not tell the whole story and you did not understand how low Israel is on the list.
> This is all trying to force a smear on Israel based on your prejudice.
> 
> You are trying much too hard to support your bias but you really don't understand what you are talking about.
> 
> Your facts don't support your argument.  Sorry.  Try something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are:
> 
> Zionutter claims Israel is perfect, no slaves and all Middle eastern countries are massive slave states.
> 
> Report shows Israel does have slaves and that several Middle East countries have less of a slave problem than Israel.
> 
> Just fact.
Click to expand...





 These are the real facts 

 YOU LIE AND LIBEL to implement your ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA.

 No one denied that Israel had a slave problem, but you are trying to make out that it has a worse problem than every Islamic nation in the world. The report shows that out of the whole M.E only 3 nations are very marginally better than Israel by .5 of a point. This out of a total of 30 Islamic and 1 Jewish nation. so this means that 27 Islamic nations are much worse than Israel

 Capiche ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one sick puppy mucking up stories, please provide a link to support that slavery exists with the support of any government and I'll show you a link of how money subjugates most of humanity into a quasi slavery to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aris, you have been brainwashed...
> 
> 
> Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> *Israel has as many as 8,500 slaves, according to a new comprehensive study of worldwide slavery. Israel placed 111 out of 162 slave-holding countries in the Global Slavery Index 2013, recently published by the Australian Walk Free Foundation. Mauritania was found to have the most serious slavery problem. *Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
> and never miss our top stories   Free Sign up!
> 
> According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, *though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state.  *
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip were not covered by the survey.
> 
> Israel did place
> 
> 
> Read more: Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel Thousands of slaves in Israel, global study finds | The Times of Israel
> Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Click to expand...




 No one is disputing that, but you are trying to take the spotlight away from the 27 Islamic nations that have tens if not hundreds of thousands of slaves. Read the report again and see that Israel comes in at 111 out of 162 nations. This means that 110 nations are worse while only 51 are better or equal.
 Now how many of those 110 nations will be muslim or muslim ran ?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the Palestinians have is World opinion and support of a peaceful approach to State to the 67 lines...Peace is mightier than the sword today and the Palestinians are winning.
> 
> 
> 
> Wake me up when all that happy horseshit results in anything worth noting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peace movements in America, South Africa, and of course India have defeated great Armies...When it happens in Palestine, you'll be eating that horseshit...
Click to expand...





 Now International Law stops this from happening so you will never see it, but I hope the Palestinians do rise up and overthrow their terrorist leaders and decide to enter civilization.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace movements in America, South Africa, and of course India have defeated great Armies...When it happens in Palestine, you'll be eating that horseshit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
Click to expand...





 That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.


----------



## Art__Allm

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with religion, that are pre-monotheistic Semitic traditions, like polygamy, child marriage and genitalia mutilation, this was practised by  biblical Hebrews, too.


----------



## Hossfly

Art__Allm said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with religion, that are pre-monotheistic Semitic traditions, like polygamy, child marriage and genitalia mutilation, this was practised by  biblical Hebrews, too.
Click to expand...

What?


----------



## Art__Allm

Hossfly said:


> What?



What what?


----------



## Hossfly

Art__Allm said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What what?
Click to expand...

What was your post answering?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Art__Allm said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, *the burkha* covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That has nothing to do with religion*, that are pre-monotheistic Semitic traditions, like polygamy, child marriage and genitalia mutilation,* this was practised by  biblical Hebrews, too.*
Click to expand...



Actually, that is not correct. Burkahs as we see them today were never a part of Judaism, but there is a sect of a small number of ultra-orthodox jewish women who began to wear burkahs, the sect sprang up in 2008. They are called the (Haredi) Burqua sect.

What Judaism had for thousands of years was a type of wall of separation between men and women in the Synagogue, called a Mechitzah. But full body clothing as the burkah, back then? No.


----------



## Kondor3

I am not an expert but I cannot recall a period in history when the Jews made their women wear head-to-toe burlap bags, or other stylish canvas grain or potato sacks.


----------



## aris2chat

Statistikhengst said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, *the burkha* covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That has nothing to do with religion*, that are pre-monotheistic Semitic traditions, like polygamy, child marriage and genitalia mutilation,* this was practised by  biblical Hebrews, too.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is not correct. Burkahs as we see them today were never a part of Judaism, but there is a sect of a small number of ultra-orthodox jewish women who began to wear burkahs, the sect sprang up in 2008. They are called the (Haredi) Burqua sect.
> 
> What Judaism had for thousands of years was a type of wall of separation between men and women in the Synagogue, called a Mechitzah. But full body clothing as the burkah, back then? No.
Click to expand...


they are not considered a sect but a cult.


----------



## Statistikhengst

aris2chat said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That has nothing to do with religion*, that are pre-monotheistic Semitic traditions, like polygamy, child marriage and genitalia mutilation,* this was practised by  biblical Hebrews, too.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is not correct. Burkahs as we see them today were never a part of Judaism, but there is a sect of a small number of ultra-orthodox jewish women who began to wear burkahs, the sect sprang up in 2008. They are called the (Haredi) Burqua sect.
> 
> What Judaism had for thousands of years was a type of wall of separation between men and women in the Synagogue, called a Mechitzah. But full body clothing as the burkah, back then? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they are not considered a sect but a cult.
Click to expand...


Is there a difference?


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with religion, that are pre-monotheistic Semitic traditions, like polygamy, child marriage and genitalia mutilation, this was practised by  biblical Hebrews, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?
Click to expand...





 A snide way of saying that the Jews were just as bad 4000 years ago as the muslims are today, so we should not talk about what the muslims still practise.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
Click to expand...


Whose religion? I'm sure you'll take whatever is under the bag...You are demonizing a Religion that has 1.4 billion people...I know I've told you before, your mind is sick, get some relief from your hate through clinical therapy.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that you in drag Sir Limp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose religion? I'm sure you'll take whatever is under the bag...You are demonizing a Religion that has 1.4 billion people...I know I've told you before, your mind is sick, get some relief from your hate through clinical therapy.
Click to expand...





NO I am telling the truth about your religion as gathered from sites by your fellow religionists. It is not my mind that is sick but the collective mind of the muslims that see nothing wrong in marrying 9 year  old girls and cutting of peoples hands and feet.


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with your religion, the burkha covers up everything and you don't know if you are getting a male or a female. Not that it matters to you as one is just as valid as the other for relief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose religion? I'm sure you'll take whatever is under the bag...You are demonizing a Religion that has 1.4 billion people...I know I've told you before, your mind is sick, get some relief from your hate through clinical therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO I am telling the truth about your religion as gathered from sites by your fellow religionists. It is not my mind that is sick but the collective mind of the muslims that see nothing wrong in marrying 9 year  old girls and cutting of peoples hands and feet.
Click to expand...

Are you demonizing demons again? Tsk, tsk, tsk...


----------



## toastman

Pbel is a Muslim? 
Cool, I had no idea..


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> Pbel is a Muslim?
> Cool, I had no idea..



Actually, I have some kosher blood through the Marino's in my family, they were forcibly converted in 1492.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> The Israelis hit the Egyptians and...


...that started the 6-day war.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis hit the Egyptians and...
> 
> 
> 
> ...that started the 6-day war.
Click to expand...


No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)


----------



## Indeependent

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis hit the Egyptians and...
> 
> 
> 
> ...that started the 6-day war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)
Click to expand...


Here's the bigger, and more significant historical picture...
A nation that just had it's national a$$ almost completely annihilated and completely humiliated wiped the floor with it's well funded, surrounding enemies.

This floor wiping has remained consistent for over 50 years.
How would YOU feel if you kept getting your a$$ handed to you on a stainless steel platter?


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)


Do us a favor and keep your sex fetishes out of this discussion.


_*
O Canada! Our home and native land!
 True patriot love in all thy sons command.
 With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
 The True North strong and free!
 From far and wide, O Canada,
 We stand on guard for thee.​*_


----------



## Kondor3

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis hit the Egyptians and...
> 
> 
> 
> ...that started the 6-day war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)
Click to expand...

Agreed.

1. close the straits of Tiran to Israeli traffic in an attempt to choke them

2. Egyptian mobilization on the Israeli border

3. Syrian mobilization on the Israeli border

4. Jordanian mobilization on the Israeli border

5. Egyptian President, speaking on behalf of all three, vowing to make war upon Israel and destroy it

Adequate casus belli, by any sane standard.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that started the 6-day war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 1. close the straits of Tiran to Israeli traffic in an attempt to choke them
> 
> 2. Egyptian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 3. Syrian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 4. Jordanian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 5. Egyptian President, speaking on behalf of all three, vowing to make war upon Israel and destroy it
> 
> Adequate casus belli, by any sane standard.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but normal standards don't go as low as yours.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 1. close the straits of Tiran to Israeli traffic in an attempt to choke them
> 
> 2. Egyptian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 3. Syrian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 4. Jordanian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 5. Egyptian President, speaking on behalf of all three, vowing to make war upon Israel and destroy it
> 
> Adequate casus belli, by any sane standard.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, but normal standards don't go as low as yours.
Click to expand...


That was extremely rude Mr. Billo ! 
Didn't your parents teach you manners?!!?!


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 1. close the straits of Tiran to Israeli traffic in an attempt to choke them
> 
> 2. Egyptian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 3. Syrian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 4. Jordanian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 5. Egyptian President, speaking on behalf of all three, vowing to make war upon Israel and destroy it
> 
> Adequate casus belli, by any sane standard.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, but normal standards don't go as low as yours.
Click to expand...

Mind your manners, in the presence of your betters, boy...


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> That was extremely rude Mr. Billo !
> Didn't your parents teach you manners?!!?!


No.  I was raised a Catholic.

Everything we did was wrong.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis hit the Egyptians and...
> 
> 
> 
> ...that started the 6-day war.
Click to expand...




 Actually it ended it as from then on Israel was the winners


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Egypt started the war by poking the bear ( Israel)
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 1. close the straits of Tiran to Israeli traffic in an attempt to choke them
> 
> 2. Egyptian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 3. Syrian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 4. Jordanian mobilization on the Israeli border
> 
> 5. Egyptian President, speaking on behalf of all three, vowing to make war upon Israel and destroy it
> 
> Adequate casus belli, by any sane standard.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, but normal standards don't go as low as yours.
Click to expand...





 Whats wrong billy boy no answers to the facts when they are spelt out, or is it just your rank hypocrisy that stops you from dealing with reality. Not even the UN could find any grounds to haul Israel over the coals on this.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was extremely rude Mr. Billo !
> Didn't your parents teach you manners?!!?!
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I was raised a Catholic.
> 
> Everything we did was wrong.
Click to expand...




 You forgot to mention all your addictions as well from alcoholism to necrophilia


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel is a Muslim?
> Cool, I had no idea..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have some kosher blood through the Marino's in my family, they were forcibly converted in 1492.
Click to expand...


I've always wondered, when you bend down and kiss a carpet at the mosque, what does it smell like after everyone's walked on it with their sweaty feet?

And is the bathroom in the mosque just a hole in the floor with a bar of soap?


----------



## aris2chat

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pbel is a Muslim?
> Cool, I had no idea..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have some kosher blood through the Marino's in my family, they were forcibly converted in 1492.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always wondered, when you bend down and kiss a carpet at the mosque, what does it smell like after everyone's walked on it with their sweaty feet?
> 
> And is the bathroom in the mosque just a hole in the floor with a bar of soap?
Click to expand...


Most mosques today have a long tiled trench like a long tub with a number of faucets and soap or soap dispensers.  Wudu involves washing hand three times, rinsing the mouth, cleaning the nose, wash the face three times, wash the arms to the elbow, cleaning the ears, washing the feet and then making the supplication.

Carpet should not smell like sweaty feet.  Carpets are cleaned before prayers.


----------



## MrMax

aris2chat said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have some kosher blood through the Marino's in my family, they were forcibly converted in 1492.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered, when you bend down and kiss a carpet at the mosque, what does it smell like after everyone's walked on it with their sweaty feet?
> 
> And is the bathroom in the mosque just a hole in the floor with a bar of soap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most mosques today have a long tiled trench like a long tub with a number of faucets and soap or soap dispensers.  Wudu involves washing hand three times, rinsing the mouth, cleaning the nose, wash the face three times, wash the arms to the elbow, cleaning the ears, washing the feet and then making the supplication.
> 
> Carpet should not smell like sweaty feet.  Carpets are cleaned before prayers.
Click to expand...


So they take a dump and then wash their hands, face, elbows and feet? What about wiping their ass? 

So they clean their carpets 5 times a day?


----------



## Phoenall

aris2chat said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have some kosher blood through the Marino's in my family, they were forcibly converted in 1492.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered, when you bend down and kiss a carpet at the mosque, what does it smell like after everyone's walked on it with their sweaty feet?
> 
> And is the bathroom in the mosque just a hole in the floor with a bar of soap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most mosques today have a long tiled trench like a long tub with a number of faucets and soap or soap dispensers.  Wudu involves washing hand three times, rinsing the mouth, cleaning the nose, wash the face three times, wash the arms to the elbow, cleaning the ears, washing the feet and then making the supplication.
> 
> Carpet should not smell like sweaty feet.  Carpets are cleaned before prayers.
Click to expand...





 If a muslim was to break wind during prayer they would have to start their ablutions all over again and wash inside their anus as well. God help them if they have been eating TEX-MEX


----------



## Phoenall

MrMax said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered, when you bend down and kiss a carpet at the mosque, what does it smell like after everyone's walked on it with their sweaty feet?
> 
> And is the bathroom in the mosque just a hole in the floor with a bar of soap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most mosques today have a long tiled trench like a long tub with a number of faucets and soap or soap dispensers.  Wudu involves washing hand three times, rinsing the mouth, cleaning the nose, wash the face three times, wash the arms to the elbow, cleaning the ears, washing the feet and then making the supplication.
> 
> Carpet should not smell like sweaty feet.  Carpets are cleaned before prayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they take a dump and then wash their hands, face, elbows and feet? What about wiping their ass?
> 
> So they clean their carpets 5 times a day?
Click to expand...





 Only if they have had TEX-MEX


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most mosques today have a long tiled trench like a long tub with a number of faucets and soap or soap dispensers.  Wudu involves washing hand three times, rinsing the mouth, cleaning the nose, wash the face three times, wash the arms to the elbow, cleaning the ears, washing the feet and then making the supplication.
> 
> Carpet should not smell like sweaty feet.  Carpets are cleaned before prayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they take a dump and then wash their hands, face, elbows and feet? What about wiping their ass?
> 
> So they clean their carpets 5 times a day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they have had TEX-MEX
Click to expand...


Keep lying, the Muslims are cleaner than the Jews...How do you feel when the truth is known?


Who are the cleanest people in the World?


Who are the cleanest people in the World? 



Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-

 1-Buhddist.
 2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)
 3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)
 4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)
 5-Satanism. (I don't know)
 6-Anthaest. 
 7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).
 8-Jews


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they take a dump and then wash their hands, face, elbows and feet? What about wiping their ass?
> 
> So they clean their carpets 5 times a day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they have had TEX-MEX
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep lying, the Muslims are cleaner than the Jews...How do you feel when the truth is known?
> 
> 
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> 
> 
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-
> 
> 1-Buhddist.
> 2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)
> 3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)
> 4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)
> 5-Satanism. (I don't know)
> 6-Anthaest.
> 7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).
> 8-Jews
Click to expand...


So tell us, Pbel, out of the 8 groups listed for readers to choose from, which one did  you choose (on a scientific basis of course)?  Actually, I wouldn't even pick any of this specific groups since most people here in America shower quite often.  However, I will tell you this.  Many people who have gotten on planes going to Bahrain said that the women douse themselves with strong perfume because people in the Arab Middle Eastern countries don't shower as often.  Maybe because so much is desert land and they don't have the water.  I guess you, too, could check this out with people who have flown to the Middle East countries.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they have had TEX-MEX
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying, the Muslims are cleaner than the Jews...How do you feel when the truth is known?
> 
> 
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> 
> 
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-
> 
> 1-Buhddist.
> 2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)
> 3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)
> 4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)
> 5-Satanism. (I don't know)
> 6-Anthaest.
> 7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).
> 8-Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell us, Pbel, out of the 8 groups listed for readers to choose from, which one did  you choose (on a scientific basis of course)?  Actually, I wouldn't even pick any of this specific groups since most people here in America shower quite often.  However, I will tell you this.  Many people who have gotten on planes going to Bahrain said that the women douse themselves with strong perfume because people in the Arab Middle Eastern countries don't shower as often.  Maybe because so much is desert land and they don't have the water.  I guess you, too, could check this out with people who have flown to the Middle East countries.
Click to expand...


Sally, I didn't bring up this racist subject and don't like it , but it needed clarification by the truth.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-  1-Buhddist.  2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)  3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)  4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)  5-Satanism. (I don't know)  6-Anthaest.  7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).  8-Jews


And this is all based upon what now? An informal survey on a gaming web site?


----------



## Sally

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-  1-Buhddist.  2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)  3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)  4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)  5-Satanism. (I don't know)  6-Anthaest.  7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).  8-Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is all based upon what now? An informal survey on a gaming web site?
Click to expand...


It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-  1-Buhddist.  2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)  3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)  4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)  5-Satanism. (I don't know)  6-Anthaest.  7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).  8-Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is all based upon what now? An informal survey on a gaming web site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?
Click to expand...


Well, my scientific method would have chosen the Christian/Democratic/Technological Group simply with Technology and the best Geography...Surprised Muslims before Jews because of the water shortages...I suspect that the Muslims and Jews is more of a ritualistic washing like the Hindus....

What was your choice? Do you shower?


----------



## Kondor3

Sally said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-  1-Buhddist.  2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)  3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)  4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)  5-Satanism. (I don't know)  6-Anthaest.  7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).  8-Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is all based upon what now? An informal survey on a gaming web site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass, in this narrow context... it was a dumb statement, predicated upon an even more stupid baseline...


----------



## Sally

Kondor3 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is all based upon what now? An informal survey on a gaming web site?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass, in this narrow context... it was a dumb statement, predicated upon an even more stupid baseline...
Click to expand...


I think most people would have just passed by a silly questionnaire like that.  However, did you notice that Pbel is now asking me if I shower?   Perhaps he is hinting to us in a round about way that he just takes a Saturday-night bath.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass, in this narrow context... it was a dumb statement, predicated upon an even more stupid baseline...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think most people would have just passed by a silly questionnaire like that.  However, did you notice that Pbel is now asking me if I shower?   Perhaps he is hinting to us in a round about way that he just takes a Saturday-night bath.
Click to expand...


I was only asking because most of your posts smell foul.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Not even the UN could find any grounds to haul Israel over the coals on this.


O contraire', brainless one, the UN has raked Israel over 100 times in subsequent resolutions on this matter.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even the UN could find any grounds to haul Israel over the coals on this.
> 
> 
> 
> O contraire', brainless one, the UN has raked Israel over 100 times in subsequent resolutions on this matter.
Click to expand...

No finer collection of Toilet Tissue exists anywhere on the face of the planet !


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> No finer collection of Toilet Tissue exists anywhere on the face of the planet !


To un-American scumbags who advocate lawlessness.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Oh, please. This thread needs a healthy diversion.








Now, watch those tits 30 times over, it's very calming.

Thank you.

You may now return to bashing the hell out of each other.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No finer collection of Toilet Tissue exists anywhere on the face of the planet !
> 
> 
> 
> To un-American scumbags who advocate lawlessness.
Click to expand...

Un-American?

Scumbag?

Advocating Lawlessness?

You have me confused with someone who advocates on behalf of Militant Muslims such as the Palestinians.

If those UN Resolutions against Israel have had any effect beyond the realm of Charmin, feel free to enlighten the audience, Junior.


----------



## Kondor3

Now stop that... she's gonna put somebody's eye out with those... 





Gotta be an insurance risk or OSHA violation, fer shure...



Statistikhengst said:


> Oh, please. This thread needs a healthy diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, watch those tits 30 times over, it's very calming.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> You may now return to bashing the hell out of each other.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they take a dump and then wash their hands, face, elbows and feet? What about wiping their ass?
> 
> So they clean their carpets 5 times a day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they have had TEX-MEX
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep lying, the Muslims are cleaner than the Jews...How do you feel when the truth is known?
> 
> 
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> 
> 
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-
> 
> 1-Buhddist.
> 2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)
> 3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)
> 4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)
> 5-Satanism. (I don't know)
> 6-Anthaest.
> 7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).
> 8-Jews
Click to expand...




 Actually in the UK they are the filthiest and many have had premises shut down because of a total lack of hygiene. Some examples are rotten maggot infested  meat served up to customers. Rat infestations in the kitchens, mouse infestations in the kitchens, filthy rag used as the only cleaning agent in a kitchen, staff toilet with no water full to overflowing. Waste food rotting on food preparation areas, butchers block contaminated and never cleaned. Chocolate cakes found to contain fecal matter, and garlic mayo found with traces of semen. All reported in the local UK press over a period of less than a fortnight, and it seems that the rest of the country is just the same.   Just look at the general grubbiness and dirty condition of the clothes worn by muslims that never seem to get washed, the smell of stale body odour that wafts from them when you walk past. 

 NOT VERY HYGIENIC AT THE END OF THE DAY ARE THEY


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is all based upon what now? An informal survey on a gaming web site?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, my scientific method would have chosen the Christian/Democratic/Technological Group simply with Technology and the best Geography...Surprised Muslims before Jews because of the water shortages...I suspect that the Muslims and Jews is more of a ritualistic washing like the Hindus....
> 
> What was your choice? Do you shower?
Click to expand...





 Full body cleanse twice a day at least, hands/arms washed as practised in hospitals because of self administered injections/blood tests. All the Jews I know are clean with clean clothes on every day. Their shops are clean and tidy with no out of date stock on the shelves. The muslims pay lip service to cleanliness due to their semi illiteracy and don't realise that being clean can stop many diseases


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even the UN could find any grounds to haul Israel over the coals on this.
> 
> 
> 
> O contraire', brainless one, the UN has raked Israel over 100 times in subsequent resolutions on this matter.
Click to expand...




 Try again child as the ISLAMONAZI UNSC has recommended the resolutions and the UNGC has not done anything about them. You do realise that UNGC and UNSC are not legal commands but recommendations and have no legal merit. The only threat is the sanctions the UN can impose through its member states.

 So show were the UN has imposed any sanctions on Israel for its actions O dumbass


----------



## Statistikhengst

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even the UN could find any grounds to haul Israel over the coals on this.
> 
> 
> 
> O contraire', brainless one, the UN has raked Israel over 100 times in subsequent resolutions on this matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again child as the ISLAMONAZI UNSC has recommended the resolutions and the UNGC has not done anything about them. You do realise that UNGC and UNSC are not legal commands but recommendations and have no legal merit. The only threat is the sanctions the UN can impose through its member states.
> 
> So show were the UN has imposed any sanctions on Israel for its actions O dumbass
Click to expand...


She also lied out her ass. It was not the entire UN. It was the UNHRC (Human Rights Commission) and it happens every time they let one of those islamic dictator states chair the commission. Go figure.


----------



## MrMax

1. Nobody cares what the UN says. Anyways, whatever vote was held, I'm sure that China vetoed it. 

2. Mohammed described in detail how a good muslim should wipe his ass with an uneven number of ROCKS!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was so ridiculous for Pbel to even bring it up in the first place.  It was not a scientific study, and it just offered the readers of the site to make a choice among 8 groups.  Do you think Pbel will tell us what choice was his, as if we didn't know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my scientific method would have chosen the Christian/Democratic/Technological Group simply with Technology and the best Geography...Surprised Muslims before Jews because of the water shortages...I suspect that the Muslims and Jews is more of a ritualistic washing like the Hindus....
> 
> What was your choice? Do you shower?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full body cleanse twice a day at least, hands/arms washed as practised in hospitals because of self administered injections/blood tests. All the Jews I know are clean with clean clothes on every day. Their shops are clean and tidy with no out of date stock on the shelves. The muslims pay lip service to cleanliness due to their semi illiteracy and don't realise that being clean can stop many diseases
Click to expand...


Does your hospital's moniker say mental health on it?


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Try again child as the ISLAMONAZI UNSC has recommended the resolutions and the UNGC has not done anything about them. You do realise that UNGC and UNSC are not legal commands but recommendations and have no legal merit. The only threat is the sanctions the UN can impose through its member states.
> 
> So show were the UN has imposed any sanctions on Israel for its actions O dumbass


UNSC resolutions are binding, you fucking moron!


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Un-American?
> 
> Scumbag?
> 
> Advocating Lawlessness?


If the shoe fits, then wear it, asshole.


I bet you bow pretty good?


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Un-American?
> 
> Scumbag?
> 
> Advocating Lawlessness?
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe fits, then wear it, asshole.
> 
> 
> I bet you bow pretty good?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how this advances the discussion of the Israel-Palestine problem.

*DO* try to stay on-topic, child.

Now, if you have something intelligent to say, in connection with those 100 UN Resolutions you cited, and their actual *IMPACT* upon Israel, beyond the realm of toilet-paper, well, then, *say* it.

Otherwise, back to the Kiddie Table for you... you're bothering the grown-ups again.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they take a dump and then wash their hands, face, elbows and feet? What about wiping their ass?
> 
> So they clean their carpets 5 times a day?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they have had TEX-MEX
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep lying, the Muslims are cleaner than the Jews...How do you feel when the truth is known?
> Who are the cleanest people in the World?
> Who are the people, that are clean in their faith, body and religion. For example:- Choose from the following:-
> 
> 1-Buhddist.
> 2-Christians. (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent)
> 3-Muslims. (Sunni and Shii)
> 4-Hindus. (There are many types of them, but they are all the same)
> 5-Satanism. (I don't know)
> 6-Anthaest.
> 7-Others. ( Like the african tribes and other beliefs).
> 8-Jews
Click to expand...


Mohammed described in detail how to wipe your ass with an uneven number of rock! OUCH! 

Does a place like Pakistan even have any showers?


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> I'm not sure how this advances the discussion of the Israel-Palestine problem.
> 
> *DO* try to stay on-topic, child.
> 
> Now, if you have something intelligent to say, in connection with those 100 UN Resolutions you cited, and their actual *IMPACT* upon Israel, beyond the realm of toilet-paper, well, then, *say* it.
> 
> Otherwise, back to the Kiddie Table for you... you're bothering the grown-ups again.


I already did say something intelligent on this subject, which prompted you to go on some juvenile, illogical rant.



Kondor3 said:


> _Un-American?
> 
> Scumbag?
> 
> Advocating Lawlessness?
> 
> You have me confused with someone who advocates on behalf of Militant Muslims such as the Palestinians.
> 
> If those UN Resolutions against Israel have had any effect beyond the realm of Charmin, feel free to enlighten the audience, Junior._


*Juvenile* - because a responsible adult, does not make fun of the law.

*Un-American* - because this country was founded on the rule of law and being against that, is anti-American.

*Scumbag* - because real people are dying and you think this is a game.

*Advocating Lawlessness* - because inferring a law should not be obeyed, if it doesn't have a personal impact with you, is the same as saying it's okay to commit crimes, if you don't get caught.

And in light of your comments, you got a lot of nerve calling others "militant".

Now take that little smug, arrogant attitude of yours and go to hell!


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how this advances the discussion of the Israel-Palestine problem.
> 
> *DO* try to stay on-topic, child.
> 
> Now, if you have something intelligent to say, in connection with those 100 UN Resolutions you cited, and their actual *IMPACT* upon Israel, beyond the realm of toilet-paper, well, then, *say* it.
> 
> Otherwise, back to the Kiddie Table for you... you're bothering the grown-ups again.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did say something intelligent on this subject, which prompted you to go on some juvenile, illogical rant.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Un-American?
> 
> Scumbag?
> 
> Advocating Lawlessness?
> 
> You have me confused with someone who advocates on behalf of Militant Muslims such as the Palestinians.
> 
> If those UN Resolutions against Israel have had any effect beyond the realm of Charmin, feel free to enlighten the audience, Junior._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Juvenile* - because a responsible adult, does not make fun of the law.
Click to expand...

I don't make fun of the Law.

I am a law-abiding person, to the best of my own poor ability.

But, like every other human being on the face of the planet...

I reserve to myself, the right to perceive Law as...

1. real

2. fair and unbiased

3. enforceable

4. consistently applied with respect to all parties

5. whether compliance risks personal or national survival or well-being

...and the UN Resolutions (toilet paper) that you cite do not meet any of the above five (5) sniff tests.

They are a joke, and, therefore, merit a good long belly laugh.

Especially when doing so aggravates children and nasty wee boggits such as yourself.



> *Un-American* - because this country was founded on the rule of law and being against that, is anti-American...


We are not dealing with the United States.

We are dealing with Israel-Palestine.

And our own country - the United States - was _NOT_ founded upon the Rule of Law.

This country was founded upon violent, bloody Revolution _AGAINST_ lawful authority.

Because our founders had the balls to tell lawful authority to go fuck itself, when it became clear that the deck was stacked against them.

We only turned ourselves _into_ a nation ruled by law _after_ we established ourselves.

Hell, regarding our dealings with indigenous natives and close neighbors, we only chose to begin abiding by the Law - such as it was - _after_ we had expanded from coast to coast, and _after_ we had taken what we needed and wanted.

Your world view is more closely akin to that of a Smurf than that of a Pragmatist or Realist.



> ...*Scumbag* - because real people are dying and you think this is a game...


Game?

Hardly.

It's deadly serious.

A game for Realists and Grown-Ups, not pussy Internationalists and Militant Muslim Apologists and Arab butt-buddy fifth-columnists who cry like whiny bitches when their irrelevancies aren't taken seriously.



> ...*Advocating Lawlessness* - because inferring a law should not be obeyed, if it doesn't have a personal impact with you, is the same as saying it's okay to commit crimes, if you don't get caught...


The UN Resolutions you cite have little value or force 'at law'.

The UN is a toothless paper tiger that is only listened-to by nations when it suits them.

And, a stack of Resolutions, all one-sided, and designed to cripple and hobble one nation in favor of another, based upon the activism of an ethnic League which is hell-bent upon advancing the cause of its co-religionists, is not Law... it's toilet paper... as Real World Events have proven, time and again.

If you-and-yours see enforceable violations of Law at work, you are free to bring charges before a suitable and legally competent Judicial Body, tasked with Trial and Judgment and Enforcement.

I'd try the _Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal_, if I were you.








> ..._And in light of your comments, you got a lot of nerve calling others "militant"_...


Non sequitur.



> _Now take that little smug, arrogant attitude of yours and go to hell!_


Thank you for your feedback.

Are we done with your latest Tourettes outburst yet?


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how this advances the discussion of the Israel-Palestine problem.
> 
> *DO* try to stay on-topic, child.
> 
> Now, if you have something intelligent to say, in connection with those 100 UN Resolutions you cited, and their actual *IMPACT* upon Israel, beyond the realm of toilet-paper, well, then, *say* it.
> 
> Otherwise, back to the Kiddie Table for you... you're bothering the grown-ups again.
> 
> 
> 
> I already did say something intelligent on this subject, which prompted you to go on some juvenile, illogical rant.
> 
> *Juvenile* - because a responsible adult, does not make fun of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make fun of the Law.
> 
> I am a law-abiding person, to the best of my own poor ability.
> 
> But, like every other human being on the face of the planet...
> 
> I reserve to myself, the right to perceive Law as...
> 
> 1. real
> 
> 2. fair and unbiased
> 
> 3. enforceable
> 
> 4. consistently applied with respect to all parties
> 
> 5. whether compliance risks personal or national survival or well-being
> 
> ...and the UN Resolutions (toilet paper) that you cite do not meet any of the above five (5) sniff tests.
> 
> They are a joke, and, therefore, merit a good long belly laugh.
> 
> Especially when doing so aggravates children and nasty wee boggits such as yourself.
> 
> 
> We are not dealing with the United States.
> 
> We are dealing with Israel-Palestine.
> 
> And our own country - the United States - was _NOT_ founded upon the Rule of Law.
> 
> This country was founded upon violent, bloody Revolution _AGAINST_ lawful authority.
> 
> Because our founders had the balls to tell lawful authority to go fuck itself, when it became clear that the deck was stacked against them.
> 
> We only turned ourselves _into_ a nation ruled by law _after_ we established ourselves.
> 
> Hell, regarding our dealings with indigenous natives and close neighbors, we only chose to begin abiding by the Law - such as it was - _after_ we had expanded from coast to coast, and _after_ we had taken what we needed and wanted.
> 
> Your world view is more closely akin to that of a Smurf than that of a Pragmatist or Realist.
> 
> 
> Game?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> It's deadly serious.
> 
> A game for Realists and Grown-Ups, not pussy Internationalists and Militant Muslim Apologists and Arab butt-buddy fifth-columnists who cry like whiny bitches when their irrelevancies aren't taken seriously.
> 
> 
> The UN Resolutions you cite have little value or force 'at law'.
> 
> The UN is a toothless paper tiger that is only listened-to by nations when it suits them.
> 
> And, a stack of Resolutions, all one-sided, and designed to cripple and hobble one nation in favor of another, based upon the activism of an ethnic League which is hell-bent upon advancing the cause of its co-religionists, is not Law... it's toilet paper... as Real World Events have proven, time and again.
> 
> If you-and-yours see enforceable violations of Law at work, you are free to bring charges before a suitable and legally competent Judicial Body, tasked with Trial and Judgment and Enforcement.
> 
> I'd try the _Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal_, if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..._And in light of your comments, you got a lot of nerve calling others "militant"_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Now take that little smug, arrogant attitude of yours and go to hell!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
> 
> Are we done with your latest Tourettes outburst yet?
Click to expand...


Since I can't pos rep you:   

Billowned!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,  Pbel, I think by now the readers realize you are not interested in the Arabs as a whole so of course you are not interested even in the Arabs killing each other.  Can you tell us how people are nobel when they send in people as suicide bombers and then treat these suicide bombers as celebrities?  Did you know what Abbas thesis is, Pbel?  I believe is was denial of the Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying again....
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism
> 
> The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis, completed in 1982 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1984 it was published as a book in Arabic titled "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya).
> 
> *The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[*12][62] Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[65][66]
> Through Secret Channels (1995) Memoirs of the Oslo agreement
Click to expand...


you took her and the others to school there.


----------



## Phoenall

9/11 inside job said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,  Pbel, I think by now the readers realize you are not interested in the Arabs as a whole so of course you are not interested even in the Arabs killing each other.  Can you tell us how people are nobel when they send in people as suicide bombers and then treat these suicide bombers as celebrities?  Did you know what Abbas thesis is, Pbel?  I believe is was denial of the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying again....
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism
> 
> The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis, completed in 1982 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1984 it was published as a book in Arabic titled "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya).
> 
> *The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[*12][62] Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[65][66]
> Through Secret Channels (1995) Memoirs of the Oslo agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you took her and the others to school there.
Click to expand...





 Not really as the Haavara agreement was buying Jews their lives and putting them in Palestine were they belonged. You also forget that the Nazis had more ties with the muslims and even had muslim soldiers fighting for them. Don't forget the Grand Mufti who sent Hitler a letter asking for more Jews as he was running out.


----------



## Sally

Phoenall said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying again....
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism
> 
> The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis, completed in 1982 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1984 it was published as a book in Arabic titled "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya).
> 
> *The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[*12][62] Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[65][66]
> Through Secret Channels (1995) Memoirs of the Oslo agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you took her and the others to school there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really as the Haavara agreement was buying Jews their lives and putting them in Palestine were they belonged. You also forget that the Nazis had more ties with the muslims and even had muslim soldiers fighting for them. Don't forget the Grand Mufti who sent Hitler a letter asking for more Jews as he was running out.
Click to expand...


Does anyone think that someone with the screen name as 9/11 has any creditability?  However, perhaps since 9/11 thinks Pbel is cool, maybe Pbel will make up one of his "glorious" poems to him.

Strange how there are posters who could care less about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East and just want to concentrate on one tiny area of that huge region.

Meanwhile, it seems the book "The Transfer" is a big hit on the hate sites.  It appears that  those who have picked up about this book would have wished that the Jews didn't make an arrangement with the Nazis for some equipment to save a few Jews.  Those reading the hate sites wish those Jews saved would have been sent to the concentration camps instead.  Meanwhile, Edwin Black wishes that you would read another book of his.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Farhud-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145]The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn

The Zionist is " the eternal victim."

It is the essence of who they are. 

Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?

It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."


----------



## toastman

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."



Here, we see a very typical example of Sherri accusing Israelis or as she just lovvvves to call them, Zionists, of EXACTLY what Palestinians are guilty of, and that is being the 'eternal victim'
Anyone who follows this conflict can clearly see how hard Palestinians and their supporters work to try and show the world that they are the eternal victim.

But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## Kondor3

_There_ goes the neighborhood...


----------



## toastman

9/11 inside job said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,  Pbel, I think by now the readers realize you are not interested in the Arabs as a whole so of course you are not interested even in the Arabs killing each other.  Can you tell us how people are nobel when they send in people as suicide bombers and then treat these suicide bombers as celebrities?  Did you know what Abbas thesis is, Pbel?  I believe is was denial of the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying again....
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Main article: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism
> 
> The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 - 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis, completed in 1982 at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, and defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 1984 it was published as a book in Arabic titled "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" (Arabic: al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya).
> 
> *The dissertation and book discussed topics such as the Haavara Agreement, by which the Third Reich agreed with the Jewish Agency to facilitate Jewish emigration to Palestine, in conjunction with the UK and was never a secret at all.[*12][62] Some content of his thesis has been considered as Holocaust denial by critics, especially the parts disputing the accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust as well as the accusations that Zionist agitation was the cause of the Holocaust[63] a charge that he denies.[64] However, in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis, that "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis".[65][66]
> Through Secret Channels (1995) Memoirs of the Oslo agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you took her and the others to school there.
Click to expand...


Lol ya ok, you can tell yourself that if it makes you happy


----------



## Sally

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."



And then, of course, we have those who think just like the Nazis of old when it comes to the Jews.  

THE ETERNAL NAZI: A GERMAN AUDIENCE VIEWS ROMAN POLANSKI'S 'THE PIANIST'


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> you took her and the others to school there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really as the Haavara agreement was buying Jews their lives and putting them in Palestine were they belonged. You also forget that the Nazis had more ties with the muslims and even had muslim soldiers fighting for them. Don't forget the Grand Mufti who sent Hitler a letter asking for more Jews as he was running out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone think that someone with the screen name as 9/11 has any creditability?  However, perhaps since 9/11 thinks Pbel is cool, maybe Pbel will make up one of his "glorious" poems to him.
> 
> Strange how there are posters who could care less about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East and just want to concentrate on one tiny area of that huge region.
> 
> Meanwhile, it seems the book "The Transfer" is a big hit on the hate sites.  It appears that  those who have picked up about this book would have wished that the Jews didn't make an arrangement with the Nazis for some equipment to save a few Jews.  Those reading the hate sites wish those Jews saved would have been sent to the concentration camps instead.  Meanwhile, Edwin Black wishes that you would read another book of his.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Farhud-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145]The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...


This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we see a very typical example of Sherri accusing Israelis or as she just lovvvves to call them, Zionists, of EXACTLY what Palestinians are guilty of, and that is being the 'eternal victim'
> Anyone who follows this conflict can clearly see how hard Palestinians and their supporters work to try and show the world that they are the eternal victim.
> 
> But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


"But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously."

By we, you mean Zionutters/Ziofascists, however, doth protest too much.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we see a very typical example of Sherri accusing Israelis or as she just lovvvves to call them, Zionists, of EXACTLY what Palestinians are guilty of, and that is being the 'eternal victim'
> Anyone who follows this conflict can clearly see how hard Palestinians and their supporters work to try and show the world that they are the eternal victim.
> 
> But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously."
> 
> By we, you mean Zionutters/Ziofascists, however, doth protest too much.
Click to expand...


No, dear boy, he means you Islamonutters plus your fellow travelers here in America.  So nice to see the Iranian gang stick up for their hostess.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really as the Haavara agreement was buying Jews their lives and putting them in Palestine were they belonged. You also forget that the Nazis had more ties with the muslims and even had muslim soldiers fighting for them. Don't forget the Grand Mufti who sent Hitler a letter asking for more Jews as he was running out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone think that someone with the screen name as 9/11 has any creditability?  However, perhaps since 9/11 thinks Pbel is cool, maybe Pbel will make up one of his "glorious" poems to him.
> 
> Strange how there are posters who could care less about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East and just want to concentrate on one tiny area of that huge region.
> 
> Meanwhile, it seems the book "The Transfer" is a big hit on the hate sites.  It appears that  those who have picked up about this book would have wished that the Jews didn't make an arrangement with the Nazis for some equipment to save a few Jews.  Those reading the hate sites wish those Jews saved would have been sent to the concentration camps instead.  Meanwhile, Edwin Black wishes that you would read another book of his.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Farhud-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145]The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.
Click to expand...


So, Defeat57, why didn't you bring this up to the poster who first talked about The Transfer.  I wonder if Defeat67 thinks that 9/11 Inside Job is a wonderful. apropos screen name, and that a poster with that name would really be believable.  So tell us, Defeat67, how's tricks in Iran these days?


----------



## montelatici

Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?



In any language you are still being rude.  I'm sure she can figure it out but I would be glad to translate for her in an email, if she asks.


----------



## Statistikhengst

montelatici said:


> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?




 Che cazzo stai dicendo? Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre, piccolo pompinaio!


----------



## Kondor3

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone think that someone with the screen name as 9/11 has any creditability?  However, perhaps since 9/11 thinks Pbel is cool, maybe Pbel will make up one of his "glorious" poems to him.
> 
> Strange how there are posters who could care less about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East and just want to concentrate on one tiny area of that huge region.
> 
> Meanwhile, it seems the book "The Transfer" is a big hit on the hate sites.  It appears that  those who have picked up about this book would have wished that the Jews didn't make an arrangement with the Nazis for some equipment to save a few Jews.  Those reading the hate sites wish those Jews saved would have been sent to the concentration camps instead.  Meanwhile, Edwin Black wishes that you would read another book of his.
> 
> The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Defeat57, why didn't you bring this up to the poster who first talked about The Transfer.  I wonder if Defeat67 thinks that 9/11 Inside Job is a wonderful. apropos screen name, and that a poster with that name would really be believable.  So tell us, Defeat67, how's tricks in Iran these days?
Click to expand...

Is it really Icky-Vicky there, Sally? I've heard that from a couple of others as well.

I wonder if the Mods can ban by IP No. (or range) as well as ID...


----------



## MHunterB

SherriMunnerlyn said:


> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."



Oh, loooky - the l'il sherriwhore has returned.  I wonder how many other sites she's been banned from by now, LOL!  

L'il sherriKKKins knows all about trying to demonize others:  that's her essence : ))


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we see a very typical example of Sherri accusing Israelis or as she just lovvvves to call them, Zionists, of EXACTLY what Palestinians are guilty of, and that is being the 'eternal victim'
> Anyone who follows this conflict can clearly see how hard Palestinians and their supporters work to try and show the world that they are the eternal victim.
> 
> But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously."
> 
> By we, you mean Zionutters/Ziofascists, however, doth protest too much.
Click to expand...


Actually, anyone who has read Sherri's posts and is honest would say the same thing.
Even mods know she is bat shit crazy.


----------



## pbel

MHunterB said:


> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, loooky - the l'il sherriwhore has returned.  I wonder how many other sites she's been banned from by now, LOL!
> 
> L'il sherriKKKins knows all about trying to demonize others:  that's her essence : ))
Click to expand...


I just don't see the necessity for your vulgar language...


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Defeat57, why didn't you bring this up to the poster who first talked about The Transfer.  I wonder if Defeat67 thinks that 9/11 Inside Job is a wonderful. apropos screen name, and that a poster with that name would really be believable.  So tell us, Defeat67, how's tricks in Iran these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it really Icky-Vicky there, Sally? I've heard that from a couple of others as well.
> 
> I wonder if the Mods can ban by IP No. (or range) as well as ID...
Click to expand...


Yup, it is. The same idiot who's explanation for his username was that the name of the street he grew up on was called Victory and 67 was the year he was born in.


----------



## Sally

aris2chat said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any language you are still being rude.  I'm sure she can figure it out but I would be glad to translate for her in an email, if she asks.
Click to expand...


Defeat67 is just an asino pazzo whose main purpose here, as a Muslim (who just happens to know Italian) is to demonize Israel.  I had an aunt, Aris, who was a Quaker and who was at one time an Italian interpreter at the U.N. so it is no big deal that a Muslim can speak Italian.
My uncle got his PhD at the Sorbonne and his thesis was written entirely in French.
There are people who can speak 7 languages fluently.  For all we know, Defeat67 left Iran or some other Muslim country and settled in Italy.  After all, so many are running into Europe these days.


----------



## montelatici

Sally said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any language you are still being rude.  I'm sure she can figure it out but I would be glad to translate for her in an email, if she asks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defeat67 is just an asino pazzo whose main purpose here, as a Muslim (who just happens to know Italian) is to demonize Israel.  I had an aunt, Aris, who was a Quaker and who was at one time an Italian interpreter at the U.N. so it is no big deal that a Muslim can speak Italian.
> My uncle got his PhD at the Sorbonne and his thesis was written entirely in French.
> There are people who can speak 7 languages fluently.  For all we know, Defeat67 left Iran or some other Muslim country and settled in Italy.  After all, so many are running into Europe these days.
Click to expand...


Beh, si vede che questa scema e' convinta, non c'e' nulla da fare.  Forse se scrivo in Livornese capira'?  Te ed ir budello di tu ma cane, devono andare in quel paese.


----------



## montelatici

I used a little local Tuscan dialect from a particular part of Tuscany (my part) , perhaps if you bring it to a linguist he/she can confirm that only people from that area would actually be able to write that way.


----------



## montelatici

Mais, j'ai aussi vécu en France et en Tunisie et je parle français, alors peut-être je vous confonds.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any language you are still being rude.  I'm sure she can figure it out but I would be glad to translate for her in an email, if she asks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defeat67 is just an asino pazzo whose main purpose here, as a Muslim (who just happens to know Italian) is to demonize Israel.  I had an aunt, Aris, who was a Quaker and who was at one time an Italian interpreter at the U.N. so it is no big deal that a Muslim can speak Italian.
> My uncle got his PhD at the Sorbonne and his thesis was written entirely in French.
> There are people who can speak 7 languages fluently.  For all we know, Defeat67 left Iran or some other Muslim country and settled in Italy.  After all, so many are running into Europe these days.
Click to expand...


Ma perce parla sta strunza?


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any language you are still being rude.  I'm sure she can figure it out but I would be glad to translate for her in an email, if she asks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defeat67 is just an asino pazzo whose main purpose here, as a Muslim (who just happens to know Italian) is to demonize Israel.  I had an aunt, Aris, who was a Quaker and who was at one time an Italian interpreter at the U.N. so it is no big deal that a Muslim can speak Italian.
> My uncle got his PhD at the Sorbonne and his thesis was written entirely in French.
> There are people who can speak 7 languages fluently.  For all we know, Defeat67 left Iran or some other Muslim country and settled in Italy.  After all, so many are running into Europe these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beh, si vede che questa scema e' convinta, non c'e' nulla da fare.  Forse se scrivo in Livornese capira'?  Te ed ir budello di tu ma cane, devono andare in quel paese.
Click to expand...


As we can all see, Defeat67 es loco en la cabeza.  Perhaps he feel that Muslims should rule the roost on these forums, and everyone should bow down to whatever nonsense this asino pazzo tells the readers.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Mais, j'ai aussi vécu en France et en Tunisie et je parle français, alors peut-être je vous confonds.



Is the Asino Pazzo telling us that he knows French because he is a Tunisian Muslim?  My own neighbor originally came from Morocco and speaks French too which came in handy when he settled in France.  However, a Tunisian Muslim might explain why Defeat67 is trying so hard to demonize Israel.


----------



## montelatici

Ahh, now I am Tunisian.  Make up your mind.


----------



## aris2chat

Kondor3 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Defeat57, why didn't you bring this up to the poster who first talked about The Transfer.  I wonder if Defeat67 thinks that 9/11 Inside Job is a wonderful. apropos screen name, and that a poster with that name would really be believable.  So tell us, Defeat67, how's tricks in Iran these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it really Icky-Vicky there, Sally? I've heard that from a couple of others as well.
> 
> I wonder if the Mods can ban by IP No. (or range) as well as ID...
Click to expand...


On other forums, I could pull up the IP and track or block, it was not just by screen name or email address.
I don't know how this forum is set up.


----------



## aris2chat

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mais, j'ai aussi vécu en France et en Tunisie et je parle français, alors peut-être je vous confonds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Asino Pazzo telling us that he knows French because he is a Tunisian Muslim?  My own neighbor originally came from Morocco and speaks French too which came in handy when he settled in France.  However, a Tunisian Muslim might explain why Defeat67 is trying so hard to demonize Israel.
Click to expand...


No, he just lived and France and Tunisia


----------



## Sally

aris2chat said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mais, j'ai aussi vécu en France et en Tunisie et je parle français, alors peut-être je vous confonds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Asino Pazzo telling us that he knows French because he is a Tunisian Muslim?  My own neighbor originally came from Morocco and speaks French too which came in handy when he settled in France.  However, a Tunisian Muslim might explain why Defeat67 is trying so hard to demonize Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he just lived and France and Tunisia
Click to expand...


He might have been born in Tunisia and then moved to France.  Didn't many of the people from Tunisia move to France, just like the people from Morocco?


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> I don't make fun of the Law.


You think equating UN resolutions with toilet paper, is a sign of respect?


Kondor3 said:


> I am a law-abiding person, to the best of my own poor ability.


I guess that depends on how you define "law-abiding".


Kondor3 said:


> But, like every other human being on the face of the planet...
> 
> I reserve to myself, the right to perceive Law as...
> 
> 1. real
> 
> 2. fair and unbiased
> 
> 3. enforceable
> 
> 4. consistently applied with respect to all parties
> 
> 5. whether compliance risks personal or national survival or well-being
> 
> ...and the UN Resolutions (toilet paper) that you cite do not meet any of the above five (5) sniff tests.


You have the right to perceive anything you want, but the law doesn't give a shit about your perceptions.


Kondor3 said:


> They are a joke, and, therefore, merit a good long belly laugh.


That maybe so, but the reason they are laws, is no joke.


Kondor3 said:


> Especially when doing so aggravates children and nasty wee boggits such as yourself.


Or so you desire.



Kondor3 said:


> We are not dealing with the United States.
> 
> We are dealing with Israel-Palestine.
> 
> And our own country - the United States - was _NOT_ founded upon the Rule of Law.
> 
> This country was founded upon violent, bloody Revolution _AGAINST_ lawful authority.
> 
> Because our founders had the balls to tell lawful authority to go fuck itself, when it became clear that the deck was stacked against them.


Okay, I'll give you that.  Maybe "founded" wasn't the best choice of words.  

We are a country "based" on the rule of law.


Kondor3 said:


> We only turned ourselves _into_ a nation ruled by law _after_ we established ourselves.


Because we saw what happened to a country ruled by a monarchy or a theocracy.


Kondor3 said:


> Hell, regarding our dealings with indigenous natives and close neighbors, we only chose to begin abiding by the Law - such as it was - _after_ we had expanded from coast to coast, and _after_ we had taken what we needed and wanted.


Which is a black mark, this country will never live down.


Kondor3 said:


> Your world view is more closely akin to that of a Smurf than that of a Pragmatist or Realist.


I like to think my world view includes all 3 of those and then some.



Kondor3 said:


> Game?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> It's deadly serious.
> 
> A game for Realists and Grown-Ups, not pussy Internationalists and Militant Muslim Apologists and Arab butt-buddy fifth-columnists who cry like whiny bitches when their irrelevancies aren't taken seriously.


Somebody got into the Black Velvet?



Kondor3 said:


> The UN Resolutions you cite have little value or force 'at law'.


So much for_ "law-abiding"?_


Kondor3 said:


> The UN is a toothless paper tiger that is only listened-to by nations when it suits them.


That's like saying you only obey the law when its convenient for you.


Kondor3 said:


> And, a stack of Resolutions, all one-sided, and designed to cripple and hobble one nation in favor of another, based upon the activism of an ethnic League which is hell-bent upon advancing the cause of its co-religionists, is not Law... it's toilet paper... as Real World Events have proven, time and again.


Now that's bullshit and extremely biased.

Solving differences peacefully, without the threat of violence, is "one-sided"?

Respecting the inalienable rights of others, is "one-sided"?

Laws against collectively punishing an entire population of people, who've committed no crime, is "one-sided"?

Resolutions created in response to human rights violations, is "one-sided"?

Laws against wars of aggression, the highest crime a nation can commit, is "religion" based?


Kondor3 said:


> If you-and-yours see enforceable violations of Law at work, you are free to bring charges before a suitable and legally competent Judicial Body, tasked with Trial and Judgment and Enforcement.


And if me-and-mine don't, you-and-your "law-abiding" ilk, will just keep on mocking the law and defending crimes against humanity?


Kondor3 said:


> I'd try the _Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal_, if I were you.


Is that when you try to tell me an appellate court judge, doesn't know the law?



Kondor3 said:


> Non sequitur.


Not really.  I think its apropos.



Kondor3 said:


> Thank you for your feedback.


You're welcome!

That'll be $4.50 (+tax)!


Kondor3 said:


> Are we done with your latest Tourettes outburst yet?


I dunno_.....maybe?_


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really as the Haavara agreement was buying Jews their lives and putting them in Palestine were they belonged. You also forget that the Nazis had more ties with the muslims and even had muslim soldiers fighting for them. Don't forget the Grand Mufti who sent Hitler a letter asking for more Jews as he was running out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone think that someone with the screen name as 9/11 has any creditability?  However, perhaps since 9/11 thinks Pbel is cool, maybe Pbel will make up one of his "glorious" poems to him.
> 
> Strange how there are posters who could care less about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East and just want to concentrate on one tiny area of that huge region.
> 
> Meanwhile, it seems the book "The Transfer" is a big hit on the hate sites.  It appears that  those who have picked up about this book would have wished that the Jews didn't make an arrangement with the Nazis for some equipment to save a few Jews.  Those reading the hate sites wish those Jews saved would have been sent to the concentration camps instead.  Meanwhile, Edwin Black wishes that you would read another book of his.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Farhud-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145]The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.
Click to expand...




 This is pertinent to the topic as the grand mufti was the cause of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. If he had not stirred up a hornets nest then we would not have the problem we have today.  Plus hamas is a NAZI organisation as shown by the many pictures od hamas nazi's


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, we see a very typical example of Sherri accusing Israelis or as she just lovvvves to call them, Zionists, of EXACTLY what Palestinians are guilty of, and that is being the 'eternal victim'
> Anyone who follows this conflict can clearly see how hard Palestinians and their supporters work to try and show the world that they are the eternal victim.
> 
> But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But the again, we all know that Sherri has no credibility , so what she/it says shouldn't be taken seriously."
> 
> By we, you mean Zionutters/Ziofascists, however, doth protest too much.
Click to expand...




 No he means civilised human beings that are not trained from birth to be psychopathic killers in the name of allah. Ring any bells bint


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?



You know what, f**k it. Do you understand where I'm stupid?

 Yes we do bint, in trying to fool people into believing you are Italian when you cant even recite the beatitudes or the Decamaron


----------



## Phoenall

Statistikhengst said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sai cosa ti dico, ma vaffanculo.  Hai capito di dove sono imbecille?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Che cazzo stai dicendo? Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre, piccolo pompinaio!
Click to expand...




Guess the convert to islam did not expect to get fluent Italian posted back to her. Stupid bint


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread/section is about Israel and Palestine.  There is another section for the Middle East.  Perhaps if you want discuss other parts of the Middle East you should participate in the appropriate section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Defeat57, why didn't you bring this up to the poster who first talked about The Transfer.  I wonder if Defeat67 thinks that 9/11 Inside Job is a wonderful. apropos screen name, and that a poster with that name would really be believable.  So tell us, Defeat67, how's tricks in Iran these days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it really Icky-Vicky there, Sally? I've heard that from a couple of others as well.
> 
> I wonder if the Mods can ban by IP No. (or range) as well as ID...
Click to expand...





 Very easy to do when you know how, could even get their ISP to ban them for us for breaches of COS/TOS


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SherriMunnerlyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist is " the eternal victim."
> 
> It is the essence of who they are.
> 
> Why expect comments other then these as we see here attacking the AP or the UN from Zionists, comments that always demonize others?
> 
> It is simply to be expected from "the Zionist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, loooky - the l'il sherriwhore has returned.  I wonder how many other sites she's been banned from by now, LOL!
> 
> L'il sherriKKKins knows all about trying to demonize others:  that's her essence : ))
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't see the necessity for your vulgar language...
Click to expand...



 Yet you stay quiet about the profanities and vulgar language of your own and your friends.   Rank hypocrisy or just ISLAMONAZI double standards


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Mais, j'ai aussi vécu en France et en Tunisie et je parle français, alors peut-être je vous confonds.





 HEY BINT anyone can use google translate 

 &#1581;&#1587;&#1606;&#1575;&#1548; &#1571;&#1606;&#1578; &#1578;&#1585;&#1609; &#1571;&#1606; &#1607;&#1584;&#1575; '&#1548; &#1608;&#1607;&#1606;&#1575;&#1603; &#1575;&#1602;&#1578;&#1606;&#1575;&#1593;' &#1588;&#1610;&#1569; &#1594;&#1576;&#1610; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1610;&#1575;&#1605; &#1576;&#1607;. &#1585;&#1576;&#1605;&#1575; &#1604;&#1608; &#1603;&#1606;&#1578; &#1578;&#1603;&#1578;&#1576; &#1601;&#1610; &#1604;&#1610;&#1601;&#1608;&#1585;&#1606;&#1608; &#1601;&#1607;&#1605; '&#1567; &#1603;&#1606;&#1578; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1588;&#1593;&#1577; &#1578;&#1581;&#1578; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1605;&#1585;&#1575;&#1569; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1605;&#1593;&#1575;&#1569; &#1575;&#1604;&#1603;&#1604;&#1576; &#1604;&#1603;&#1606; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1603; &#1571;&#1606; &#1578;&#1584;&#1607;&#1576; &#1573;&#1604;&#1609; &#1584;&#1604;&#1603; &#1575;&#1604;&#1576;&#1604;&#1583;

Wel, byddwch yn gweld bod hyn yn ', nid argyhoeddedig' dim byd gwirion ac i'w wneud. Efallai os byddaf yn ysgrifennu yn Livorno deall '? Yr ydych chi a ir ci perfedd, ond rhaid i chi fynd i'r wlad honno

&#21999;&#65292;&#20320;&#30475;&#21040;&#36889;&#24858;&#34850;&#21644;'&#30456;&#20449;&#65292;&#26377;&#28961;&#38364;&#12290;&#20063;&#35377;&#65292;&#22914;&#26524;&#25105;&#23531;&#22312;&#21033;&#27779;&#35582;&#29702;&#35299;&#65311;&#20320;&#21644;IR&#33144;&#29399;&#65292;&#20294;&#20320;&#24517;&#38920;&#21435;&#37027;&#20491;&#22283;&#23478;

&#1657;&#1726;&#1740;&#1705; &#1729;&#1746;&#1548; &#1575;&#1711;&#1585; &#1570;&#1662; &#1575;&#1587; &#1662;&#1575;&#1711;&#1604; &#1575;&#1608;&#1585; '&#1740;&#1602;&#1740;&#1606;&#1548; &#1608;&#1729;&#1575;&#1722; &#1705;&#1670;&#1726; &#1606;&#1729;&#1740;&#1722; &#1583;&#1740;&#1705;&#1726;&#1578;&#1746; &#1729;&#1740;&#1722; &#1705;&#1729;. &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; Livorno &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1604;&#1705;&#1726;&#1578;&#1746; &#1729;&#1740;&#1722; &#1578;&#1608; &#1729;&#1608; &#1587;&#1705;&#1578;&#1575; &#1729;&#1746; &#1705;&#1729; '&#1587;&#1605;&#1580;&#1726;&#1578;&#1746; &#1729;&#1608;&#1567; &#1570;&#1662; &#1575;&#1608;&#1585; IR &#1711;&#1657; &#1705;&#1578;&#1746; &#1604;&#1740;&#1705;&#1606; &#1570;&#1662; &#1705;&#1608; &#1575;&#1587; &#1605;&#1604;&#1705; &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1580;&#1575;&#1606;&#1575; &#1729;&#1746;


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make fun of the Law.
> 
> 
> 
> You think equating UN resolutions with toilet paper, is a sign of respect?
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a law-abiding person, to the best of my own poor ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that depends on how you define "law-abiding".
> You have the right to perceive anything you want, but the law doesn't give a shit about your perceptions.
> That maybe so, but the reason they are laws, is no joke.
> Or so you desire.
> 
> Okay, I'll give you that.  Maybe "founded" wasn't the best choice of words.
> 
> We are a country "based" on the rule of law.
> Because we saw what happened to a country ruled by a monarchy or a theocracy.
> Which is a black mark, this country will never live down.
> I like to think my world view includes all 3 of those and then some.
> 
> Somebody got into the Black Velvet?
> 
> So much for_ "law-abiding"?_
> That's like saying you only obey the law when its convenient for you.
> Now that's bullshit and extremely biased.
> 
> Solving differences peacefully, without the threat of violence, is "one-sided"?
> 
> Respecting the inalienable rights of others, is "one-sided"?
> 
> Laws against collectively punishing an entire population of people, who've committed no crime, is "one-sided"?
> 
> Resolutions created in response to human rights violations, is "one-sided"?
> 
> Laws against wars of aggression, the highest crime a nation can commit, is "religion" based?
> And if me-and-mine don't, you-and-your "law-abiding" ilk, will just keep on mocking the law and defending crimes against humanity?
> Is that when you try to tell me an appellate court judge, doesn't know the law?
> 
> Not really.  I think its apropos.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're welcome!
> 
> That'll be $4.50 (+tax)!
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done with your latest Tourettes outburst yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno_.....maybe?_
Click to expand...




 UN resolutions have no validity in law, they are only recommendations of how the UN would like nations to behave.


----------



## Kondor3

In connection with the Israel-Palestine conflict, and collateral topics such as the efficacy of various UN Resolutions, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, etc...

The child has, to date, repeatedly demonstrated an inability to distinguish Resolution from Statute, and Jurisdictional Competency from an absence of same. Repeated attempts at clarification, from multiple sources, have failed. It's pointless.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make fun of the Law.
> 
> 
> 
> You think equating UN resolutions with toilet paper, is a sign of respect?
Click to expand...

UN Resolutions are not International Law.

UN Resolutions oftentimes end-up carrying the same weight as a roll of toilet paper.

Mocking the ineffectiveness and practical prejudices of the UN in the context of anti-Israel UN Resolutions is a far cry from mocking or disrespecting International Law.

Your inability to mark and acknowledge that distinction is your barrier to understanding, not mine.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a law-abiding person, to the best of my own poor ability.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that depends on how you define "law-abiding".
Click to expand...

Abiding by the laws of my native land, paying my taxes, etc. - sufficient for our purposes here.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, like every other human being on the face of the planet... I reserve to myself, the right to perceive Law as... 1. real 2. fair and unbiased 3. enforceable 4. consistently applied with respect to all parties 5. whether compliance risks personal or national survival or well-being ...and the UN Resolutions (toilet paper) that you cite do not meet any of the above five (5) sniff tests.
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to perceive anything you want, but the law doesn't give a shit about your perceptions.
Click to expand...

What law would that be?

UN Resolutions are not International Law.

Oh, and, when it comes to Law and Perception... our Founding Fathers _perceived_ that the Law was stacked against them, and chose to disobey, and set it aside, and rebelled successfully, and created their own Law, as seemed best to them.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a joke, and, therefore, merit a good long belly laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> That maybe so, but the reason they are laws, is no joke.
Click to expand...

UN Resolutions are not International Law.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially when doing so aggravates children and nasty wee boggits such as yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Or so you desire.
Click to expand...

One need look no further than your abusive language and petulant, childish insistence on UN Resolutions equating to International Law, to reach the logical and common-sense conclusion that this is so, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not dealing with the United States. We are dealing with Israel-Palestine. And our own country - the United States - was NOT founded upon the Rule of Law. This country was founded upon violent, bloody Revolution AGAINST lawful authority. Because our founders had the balls to tell lawful authority to go fuck itself, when it became clear that the deck was stacked against them.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you that.  Maybe "founded" wasn't the best choice of words.We are a country "based" on the rule of law.
Click to expand...

It is mine whether you give it or not, but, for once, you get style-points for conceding same.

And 'founded' was not, indeed, the best choice of words, just as equating UN Resolutions with International Law is not the best choice of positions from which to launch an amateur -caliber legalistic tirade against Israel.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only turned ourselves into a nation ruled by law after we established ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we saw what happened to a country ruled by a monarchy or a theocracy.
Click to expand...

Just as the Jews (of Israel, and worldwide) have seen what happens when they put their trust in International Bodies and Law - 6,000,000 of them were slaughtered. Ever-so-slightly more impactful than simply living under a capricious monarchy.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, regarding our dealings with indigenous natives and close neighbors, we only chose to begin abiding by the Law - such as it was - after we had expanded from coast to coast, and after we had taken what we needed and wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a black mark, this country will never live down.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. It's what oftentimes happens during the formative years of a new nation, which is where the Israelis are at now, on their own national timeline. Nobody interfered with us. The Ummah is attempting to interfere with Israel. And failing, miserably.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your world view is more closely akin to that of a Smurf than that of a Pragmatist or Realist.
> 
> 
> 
> I like to think my world view includes all 3 of those and then some.
Click to expand...

You have much work ahead of you, pertaining to Pragmatism and Realism.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game? Hardly. It's deadly serious. A game for Realists and Grown-Ups, not pussy Internationalists and Militant Muslim Apologists and Arab butt-buddy fifth-columnists who cry like whiny bitches when their irrelevancies aren't taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody got into the Black Velvet?
Click to expand...

Nahhhhh... just spreading the love.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN Resolutions you cite have little value or force 'at law'
> 
> 
> 
> So much for_ "law-abiding"?_
Click to expand...

UN Resolutions are not International Law.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN is a toothless paper tiger that is only listened-to by nations when it suits them.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying you only obey the law when its convenient for you. Now that's bullshit and extremely biased.
Click to expand...

By Jove, I think you've got it. That is _exactly_ what nations do, in connection with the United Nations; at least, those nations beyond the realm of pipsqueaks who cannot stand on their own, and who must band together in order to sustain a discernible voice. Worldwide, we find a great many such examples since 1945. Most nations (including (Israel) scrupulously adhere-to and abide-by International Law insofar as such adherence does not impede safety or survival.



Billo_Really said:


> Solving differences peacefully, without the threat of violence, is "one-sided"?


Nope.

Solving differences peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides is highly desirable.

Let us know when the UN manages to float proposals that will do just that, in connection with this conflict.



Billo_Really said:


> Respecting the inalienable rights of others, is "one-sided"?


 Nope.

But when 'rights' and 'safety' are at-odds (_such as they are in the context of Palestinian 'rights', versus the 'safety' of Israel_), safety wins every time.

Every time.

In virtually every place and in virtually every era in the history of Man.

Every time.

These things happen, when one carves-out a new nation, to fill a vacuum such as the practical political vacuum that existed in Old Palestine at the termination of the Mandate in 1948.

Small and impotent peoples get displaced from time to time during the course of such events. Best to hurry the process along and get it over with, rather than dragging it out and prolonging the agony, pointlessly.

This displacement is effected by by squeezing them off their remaining few slivers of land and forcing them to seek subsistence elsewhere.



Billo_Really said:


> Laws against collectively punishing an entire population of people, who've committed no crime, is "one-sided"?


Nope.

And had they refrained from decades of international terrorism, and suicide bombings, and rocket-barrage campaigns, and Intifada I and Intifada II, and not fled in 1948, and not chosen the wrong side in the Arab-Israeli wars, and not elected a government led by a party judged as a terrorist organization, and not engaged in civil war amongst themselves and not diluted their focii, they could have leaned much more strongly and validly upon such a position.

They chose poorly.

They are now dealing with the consequences of those poor choices.

Their problem, not Israel's.



Billo_Really said:


> Resolutions created in response to human rights violations, is "one-sided"?


Absolutely. When they fail to take into account Cause and Effect. And when they are floated or supported or arm-twisted (for adoption) by nations and leagues of nations which routinely engage in repressive and egregious human rights violations themselves; in their cases, not as a matter of Safety or Survival Expediency, but as a matter of Religious or Cultural or Ethnic prejudice, or which, themselves, have long track records in exactly the same sort of repressive behaviors. Or much worse.



Billo_Really said:


> Laws against wars of aggression, the highest crime a nation can commit, is "religion" based?


Nope. The activism of the Arab League against Israel in the UN, in lining-up support for various UN Resolutions (_which are not International Law_) directed against Israel - cajoling other Muslim-dominated countries beyond the League, and arm-twisting the votes of other nations who are dependent upon Arab oil, is, ultimately, religion-based.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you-and-yours see enforceable violations of Law at work, you are free to bring charges before a suitable and legally competent Judicial Body, tasked with Trial and Judgment and Enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> And if me-and-mine don't, you-and-your "law-abiding" ilk, will just keep on mocking the law and defending crimes against humanity?
Click to expand...

UN Resolutions are _not_ International Law.

I see no such charges having been judged or in the process of trial by any Jursidictionally Competent legal authority, which speaks volumes about your allegations.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd try the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that when you try to tell me an appellate court judge, doesn't know the law?
Click to expand...

Never happened.

That's where I tell you that such privately-funded (_by Muslim funding, no less!_) extra-judicial kangaroo courts like that - disavowed by the countries in which they are based, no less - have no competency at-law to try such matters; lacking the Jurisdiction and Authority to do so.

Your continued inability to grasp that concept and to acknowledge its correctness is not my cross to bear.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done with your latest Tourettes outburst yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...I dunno_.....maybe?_
Click to expand...

We can always hope against hope.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> UN Resolutions are not International Law.


Yeah, right!



> _International Law
> The body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations_


That's just the classical definition.


Kondor3 said:


> UN Resolutions oftentimes end-up carrying the same weight as a roll of toilet paper.
> 
> Mocking the ineffectiveness and practical prejudices of the UN in the context of anti-Israel UN Resolutions is a far cry from mocking or disrespecting International Law.


The Axis Powers thought the same way.




Kondor3 said:


> Your inability to mark and acknowledge that distinction is your barrier to understanding, not mine.


Psychologists call that projection.



Kondor3 said:


> Abiding by the laws of my native land, paying my taxes, etc. - sufficient for our purposes here.


But not sufficient for someone claiming to be an American.



Kondor3 said:


> What law would that be?
> 
> UN Resolutions are not International Law.


Oh really?



> _ The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. _


Now what were you saying?




Kondor3 said:


> Oh, and, when it comes to Law and Perception... our Founding Fathers _perceived_ that the Law was stacked against it, and chose to disobey, and set it aside, and rebelled against it, successfully.
> 
> 
> UN Resolutions are not International Law.


See above.



Kondor3 said:


> One need look no further than your abusive language and petulant, childish insistence on UN Resolutions equating to International Law, to reach the logical and common-sense conclusion that this is so, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.


Whenever someone uses abusive language, that means UN resolutions are not International Law?

You call that logical?



Kondor3 said:


> It is mine whether you give it or not, but, for once, you get style-points for conceding same.
> 
> And 'founded' was not, indeed, the best choice of words, just as equating UN Resolutions with International Law is not the best choice of positions from which to launch an amateur -caliber legalistic tirade against Israel.


Then what is?



Kondor3 said:


> Just as the Jews (of Israel, and worldwide) have seen what happens when they put their trust in International Bodies and Law - 6,000,000 of them were slaughtered. Ever-so-slightly more impactful than simply living under a capricious monarchy.


And yet, you mock those international bodies that were created in response to that slaughter?



Kondor3 said:


> Perhaps. It's what oftentimes happens during the formative years of a new nation, which is where the Israelis are at now, on their own national timeline. Nobody interfered with us. The Ummah is attempting to interfere with Israel. And failing, miserably.


 Like Nazi Germany in the '30's?



Kondor3 said:


> UN Resolutions are not International Law.


See above.



Kondor3 said:


> By Jove, I think you've got it. That is _exactly_ what nations do, in connection with the United Nations; at least, those nations beyond the realm of pipsqueaks who cannot stand on their own, and who must band together in order to sustain a discernible voice. Worldwide, we find a great many such examples since 1945.


Granted, no one is doing what Israel is doing, since WWII.



Kondor3 said:


> Nope.
> 
> Solving differences peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides is highly desirable.
> 
> Let us know when the UN manages to float proposals that will do just that, in connection with this conflict.


And just what proposals would you float to solve the differences between Nazi Germany and Poland?


Kondor3 said:


> Nope.
> 
> But when 'rights' and 'safety' are at-odds (_such as they are in the context of Palestinian 'rights', versus the 'safety' of Israel_), safety wins every time.


I agree.  It's not very safe deliberately stripping others of their inalienable rights.



Kondor3 said:


> These things happen, when one carves-out a new nation, to fill a vacuum such as the practical political vacuum that existed in Old Palestine at the termination of the Mandate in 1948.


Just like an East LA street gang moving into an Orange County neighborhood and realizing the local sheriffs have vacated the area and have no intention of returning.  What do you think is going to happen to the residents of said area?


Kondor3 said:


> Small and impotent peoples get displaced from time to time during the course of such events. Best to hurry the process along and get it over with, rather than dragging it out.


Are you suggesting Palestinian's should be put on "trains", to hurry the process along?


Kondor3 said:


> This is being done by squeezing them off their remaining few slivers of land and forcing them to seek subsistence elsewhere.


Are you quoting heir Goebbels, or heir Herzl?



Kondor3 said:


> Nope.
> 
> And had they refrained from decades of international terrorism, and suicide bombings, and rocket-barrage campaigns, and Intifada I and Intifada II, and not fled in 1948, and not chosen the wrong side in the Arab-Israeli wars, and not elected a government led by a party judged as a terrorist organization, and not engaged in civil war amongst themselves and not diluted their focii, they could have leaned much more strongly and validly upon such a position.


Resistance is not terrorism; so bombings are okay, as long as you don't kill yourself?; rocket-barrages started in 2001, 37 years after the occupation began; the Intifada's were the effect, not the cause; fleeing a country to save your (and your family's) life, is wrong?; 



Kondor3 said:


> They chose poorly.


 so if the Jews had chosen Germany...  


Kondor3 said:


> They are now dealing with the consequences of those poor choices.


 Is that your Final Solution?



Kondor3 said:


> Their problem, not Israel's.


 You consider you building a fence across my driveway, preventing me access to my own car, my "choice" and my "problem"?



Kondor3 said:


> Absolutely. When they fail to take into account Cause and Effect.


 Like when you strip others of their inalienable rights?



Kondor3 said:


> And when they are floated or supported or arm-twisted (for adoption) by nations and leagues of nations which routinely engage in repressive and egregious human rights violations themselves; in their cases, not as a matter of Safety or Survival Expediency, but as a matter of Religious or Cultural or Ethnic prejudice, or which, themselves, have long track records in exactly the same sort of repressive behaviors. Or much worse.


 So murder is not illegal, if the accuser happens to be another murderer?



Kondor3 said:


> Nope. The activism of the Arab League against Israel in the UN, in lining-up support for various UN Resolutions (_which are not International Law_) directed against Israel - cajoling other Muslim-dominated countries beyond the League, and arm-twisting the votes of other nations who are dependent upon Arab oil, is, ultimately, religion-based.


 Then just what is "International Law"?



Kondor3 said:


> UN Resolutions are _not_ International Law.


 See above.


Kondor3 said:


> I see no such charges having been judged or in the process of trial by any Jursidictionally Competent legal authority, which speaks volumes about your allegations.


 Like the ICC?



Kondor3 said:


> Never happened.
> 
> That's where I tell you that such privately-funded (_by Muslim funding, no less!_) extra-judicial kangaroo courts like that - disavowed by the countries in which they are based, no less - have no competency at-law to try such matters; lacking the Jurisdiction and Authority to do so.


 Coming from someone who supports a country practicing administrative detention.  

Gimme some of that justice!


Kondor3 said:


> Your continued inability to grasp that concept and to acknowledge its correctness is not my cross to bear.


But your inabilities are. 


Kondor3 said:


> We can always hope against hope.


Go fuck yourself!


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Resolutions are not International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _International Law
> The body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just the classical definition.
> The Axis Powers thought the same way.
> 
> 
> Psychologists call that projection.
> 
> But not sufficient for someone claiming to be an American.
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Now what were you saying?
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> Whenever someone uses abusive language, that means UN resolutions are not International Law?
> 
> You call that logical?
> 
> Then what is?
> 
> And yet, you mock those international bodies that were created in response to that slaughter?
> 
> Like Nazi Germany in the '30's?
> 
> See above.
> 
> Granted, no one is doing what Israel is doing, since WWII.
> 
> And just what proposals would you float to solve the differences between Nazi Germany and Poland?
> I agree.  It's not very safe deliberately stripping others of their inalienable rights.
> 
> Just like an East LA street gang moving into an Orange County neighborhood and realizing the local sheriffs have vacated the area and have no intention of returning.  What do you think is going to happen to the residents of said area?
> Are you suggesting Palestinian's should be put on "trains", to hurry the process along?
> Are you quoting heir Goebbels, or heir Herzl?
> 
> Resistance is not terrorism; so bombings are okay, as long as you don't kill yourself?; rocket-barrages started in 2001, 37 years after the occupation began; the Intifada's were the effect, not the cause; fleeing a country to save your (and your family's) life, is wrong?;
> 
> so if the Jews had chosen Germany...
> Is that your Final Solution?
> 
> You consider you building a fence across my driveway, preventing me access to my own car, my "choice" and my "problem"?
> 
> Like when you strip others of their inalienable rights?
> 
> So murder is not illegal, if the accuser happens to be another murderer?
> 
> Then just what is "International Law"?
> 
> See above.
> Like the ICC?
> 
> Coming from someone who supports a country practicing administrative detention.
> 
> Gimme some of that justice!
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued inability to grasp that concept and to acknowledge its correctness is not my cross to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But your inabilities are.
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can always hope against hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck yourself!
Click to expand...


Cool! Another arab lover who thinks anyone pays attention to the UN or their meaningless scraps of paper. If the Pals want regular rights back, they just have to surrender, it did wonders for Japan who is now a valued ally to the US and the western world.


----------



## SAYIT

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Resolutions are not International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _International Law
> The body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just the classical definition.
> The Axis Powers thought the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can always hope against hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck yourself!
Click to expand...


As always, the extent of your "knowledge" and "logic" boils down to your final statement ("Go fuck yourself").
Just as our governing bodies pass resolutions that have no power in law, so to does the UN.
The following is from K12 Homeschool. Evidently your schooling didn't cover this:

"Resolutions are essentially meaningless. They allow the legislature to recognize people, events, groups, issues without actually making law. We pass a resolution declaring that next Tuesday is Butterfly Day. We pass a resolution to recognize the contribution of worms to the health of California soil. We pass a resolution honoring the sacrifices of armed service members in this or that conflict (I made all those up). We don&#8217;t make any laws protecting butterflies, or worms, or providing services to the soldiers, by passing a resolution; it&#8217;s just a feel-good measure.
They don&#8217;t have the force of law." 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uYCADQ&usg=AFQjCNG1xPM_fp-S3yHsoOzHLsjixYmuKA


----------



## P F Tinmore

SAYIT said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Resolutions are not International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right!
> 
> That's just the classical definition.
> The Axis Powers thought the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can always hope against hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go fuck yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always, the extent of your "knowledge" and "logic" boils down to your final statement ("Go fuck yourself").
> Just as our governing bodies pass resolutions that have no power in law, so to does the UN.
> The following is from K12 Homeschool. Evidently your schooling didn't cover this:
> 
> "Resolutions are essentially meaningless. They allow the legislature to recognize people, events, groups, issues without actually making law. We pass a resolution declaring that next Tuesday is Butterfly Day. We pass a resolution to recognize the contribution of worms to the health of California soil. We pass a resolution honoring the sacrifices of armed service members in this or that conflict (I made all those up). We dont make any laws protecting butterflies, or worms, or providing services to the soldiers, by passing a resolution; its just a feel-good measure.
> They dont have the force of law."
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uYCADQ&usg=AFQjCNG1xPM_fp-S3yHsoOzHLsjixYmuKA
Click to expand...


It is true that the UN does not create law. However, they do reference and define existing law. If the UN says something like "It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force." they are merely referencing an already existing law.


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial.  Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.  The Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is little more that two decades old.   Even in the complex world of the League of Arab States (LAS), it has only been six years that the Arab Charter on Human Rights entered into force _(15 March 2008)_.  Both are considered by many (including myself) to be monumental achievements in the codification of the basic principles, not so very different in form from that of the Western World.  Yet, as eloquent as they are, they are equally as dangerous:



			
				Arab Charter on Human Rights said:
			
		

> *Article 2*
> 
> 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination and to control over their natural wealth and resources, and the right to freely choose their political system and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 2. All peoples have the right to national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> 
> 3. All forms of racism, *Zionism* and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity and a major barrier to the exercise of the fundamental rights of peoples; all such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination.
> 
> 4. All peoples have the right to resist foreign occupation.
> 
> *SOURCE:* Arab Charter on Human Rights



It does insert the political issue of the day, as you can see.  The Charter has been ratified by by 13 Arab States: 

Algeria, Algeria's elections confronted by widespread disillusionment among young population
Bahrain, fairly stable Kingdom.
Iraq, Series of Bombings Kills More Than 20 Across Iraq
Jordan, fairly stable Kingdom.
Kuwait, fairly stable Kingdom.
Lebannon, There's A Fragile Peace In Lebanon  And You'd Better Hope That It Holds
Libya, Jordan's ambassador to Libya is kidnapped in Tripoli
Palestine, 
Qatar, For several decades, the Muslim Brotherhood has enjoyed safe haven in Qatar and several Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain. After the so-called Arab Spring, these countries  with the exception of Qatar  recognized that the aim of the MB is not simply to preach Islam, as they claim, but to attain power in their own countries.
Saudi Arabia, fairly stable Kingdom.
Syria, Chaos
UAE, The UAE is among the top five countries in the world in sustainability education, inspiring students to take part in advanced sustainability coursework and sophisticated green practices, a leading educationist said on Wednesday.
Yemen, Yemen's al Qaeda leader vows to attack America in new videop-0o

Are the rights real or illusionary.  Are any of the countries that ratified these rights better off now then they were before?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Resolutions are not International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right!...
Click to expand...

========================================

Most experts[1] consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding. Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly as "recommendations"; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by the International Court of Justice.[2] However, some General Assembly resolutions dealing with matters internal to the United Nations, such as budgetary decisions or instructions to lower-ranking organs, are clearly binding on their addressees...

Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law. In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding Namibia advisory opinion that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.[3] This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others.[4] De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions cannot be binding...

In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[4]

It has been proposed that a binding triad of conditions&#8212;a supermajority of the number of nations voting, whose populations and contributions in dues to the UN budget form a majority of the total&#8212;make a General Assembly resolution binding on all nations; the proposal has gone nowhere...

United Nations resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

========================================

Yeah, right.

Thus endeth the lesson.



Billo_Really said:


> International Law
> The body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations[/I]
> 
> 
> 
> That's just the classical definition.
Click to expand...

UN Resolutions are not part of the body of law which governs the legal relations between or among states or nations.

No charge for reinforcing the lesson.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Resolutions oftentimes end-up carrying the same weight as a roll of toilet paper. Mocking the ineffectiveness and practical prejudices of the UN in the context of anti-Israel UN Resolutions is a far cry from mocking or disrespecting International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> The Axis Powers thought the same way.
Click to expand...

The Axis Powers thought that UN Resolutions against Israel were a joke?

There are a great many people of goodwill and common sense who think that the UN in general is a joke, never mind those who think that the UN is inherently biased against Israel.

And none of them have anything whatsoever to do with fascism.

Disagreeing with your perspective on the United Nations does not equate to fascist behaviors nor inclinations; all disingenuous Godwin-isms to the contrary, notwithstanding.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to mark and acknowledge that distinction is your barrier to understanding, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Psychologists call that projection.
Click to expand...

Immaterial. The observation stands.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by the laws of my native land, paying my taxes, etc. - sufficient for our purposes here.
> 
> 
> 
> But not sufficient for someone claiming to be an American.
Click to expand...

Come back when you've got a DD-214 to back up your words, boy, and then I'll consider weighing your horseshit opinion on what constitutes being an American.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law would that be? UN Resolutions are not International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
Click to expand...

Really. Already addressed.



Billo_Really said:


> The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> Now what were you saying?
Click to expand...

========================================

"..._The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. The clause states that the UN Charter shall prevail in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement_..."

International Law legal definition of International Law. International Law synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

========================================

Only with respect to the Charter itself, NOT with respect to UNGA Resolutions.

Only with respect to disputes between members, not members and non-members, or between members and pseudo-members.

Go back and re-read your own linked article more thoroughly.

Tee-hee.



Billo_Really said:


> Whenever someone uses abusive language, that means UN resolutions are not International Law? You call that logical?


Nope.

One need look no further than your abusive language and petulant, childish insistence on UN Resolutions equating to International Law, to reach the common-sense conclusion that DENYING such force of law to UN Resolutions aggravates you and those who think like you in this context.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is mine whether you give it or not, but, for once, you get style-points for conceding same. And 'founded' was not, indeed, the best choice of words, just as equating UN Resolutions with International Law is not the best choice of positions from which to launch an amateur -caliber legalistic tirade against Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is?
Click to expand...

You must figure this out for yourself. In an adversarial role, it is not up to me to do your homework for you.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the Jews (of Israel, and worldwide) have seen what happens when they put their trust in International Bodies and Law - 6,000,000 of them were slaughtered. Ever-so-slightly more impactful than simply living under a capricious monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you mock those international bodies that were created in response to that slaughter?
Click to expand...

Yep.

I do not mock the concept.

I mock what the UN has become.

I mock the one-sided anti-Israel lobby within the UN General Assembly; fueled as it is by the various nations within the domain of Islam, and supported in whole or in part by those nations which must kiss Arab ass in order to obtain the oil they need.

I mock the outputs of an organization which tells Israel, for all intents and purposes: "_You must comply with our wishes or commands, even though this might result in national suicide - slowly or quickly - in order to remain in our good graces. And you must trust in our protection, to offset any dangers you might be exposed to, during the course of such compliance._"

Just as I mock any fool who tries to sell that train-car full of horse manure, and actually thinks he'll find enough gullible sheep in order to make such an approach operative.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps. It's what oftentimes happens during the formative years of a new nation, which is where the Israelis are at now, on their own national timeline. Nobody interfered with us. The Ummah is attempting to interfere with Israel. And failing, miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Nazi Germany in the '30's?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Solving differences peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides is highly desirable. Let us know when the UN manages to float proposals that will do just that, in connection with this conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> And just what proposals would you float to solve the differences between Nazi Germany and Poland?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. But when 'rights' and 'safety' are at-odds (such as they are in the context of Palestinian 'rights', versus the 'safety' of Israel), safety wins every time.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It's not very safe deliberately stripping others of their inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Then again, granting a right (such as Right of Return) is tantamount to suicide. Danger is always preferable to actual death.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These things happen, when one carves-out a new nation, to fill a vacuum such as the practical political vacuum that existed in Old Palestine at the termination of the Mandate in 1948.]
> 
> 
> 
> Just like an East LA street gang moving into an Orange County neighborhood and realizing the local sheriffs have vacated the area and have no intention of returning. What do you think is going to happen to the residents of said area?
Click to expand...

Any old resident with a lick of common sense and two quarters to rub together will get the hell outta there and stay outta there.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Small and impotent peoples get displaced from time to time during the course of such events. Best to hurry the process along and get it over with, rather than dragging it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting Palestinian's should be put on "trains", to hurry the process along?
Click to expand...

Nope.

But an international humanitarian effort to relocate the Palestinians seems to be in order; finding them homes in countries willing to accept a number of them, helping them to relocate, and to set themselves up, to become productive in their new environments.

The Palestinians have lost, and we do them no favors in encouraging them to continue a hopeless struggle that they cannot possibly win, and thereby prolonging the agony.

Just like in sandlot ball... when you lose the coin-toss or bat-grab... Suckers Walk.

It has come down to that, for those poor bastards; they've lost; it's over; time to go.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is being done by squeezing them off their remaining few slivers of land and forcing them to seek subsistence elsewhere...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you quoting heir Goebbels, or heir Herzl?
Click to expand...

Neither. I am faithfully interpreting what is happening as we speak.



Billo_Really said:


> Resistance is not terrorism...


It is, when you, or your surrogates and sympathizers, kill athletes at an Olympic Games, or hijack a cruise ship and push old crippled folk over the siderails, or hijack an airliner and threaten to kill a subset of the passengers, or detonate a bomb in an airborne craft, or yadda, yadda, yadda... the reference was to their international terrorist operations, and not domestic resistance.



Billo_Really said:


> ...so bombings are okay, as long as you don't kill yourself?...


Bombings directed against military targets are one thing. Deliberate targetings of civilians (by anyone) are quite another. And the Palestinians have shot themselves in the foot and forevermore soiled their image by launching such attacks against civilians.



Billo_Really said:


> ...rocket-barrages started in 2001, 37 years after the occupation began...


Continuing to draw blood after you have lost is pointless and downright stupid.



Billo_Really said:


> ... the Intifada's were the effect, not the cause...


Continuing to draw blood after you have lost is pointless and downright stupid.



Billo_Really said:


> fleeing a country to save your (and your family's) life, is wrong?...


Nope. But clearing-out at the behest or orders of the losing side in a war and siding with them puts you in a uniquely difficult position, in trying to return and to assert your claims. A difficulty that the Palestinians are simply not going to be able to overcome.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They chose poorly.
> 
> 
> 
> so if the Jews had chosen Germany...
Click to expand...

Childish Godwin-esque analogy. The Muslim-Arab Palestinians who chose to stay, and who did not choose the wrong side, are now fully-fledged and vested Israeli citizens.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are now dealing with the consequences of those poor choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your Final Solution?
Click to expand...

Nope. But we have no time machine with which the Palestinians can travel backwards in time to un-do the stupid decisions they've made in the past 66 years. The situation is what it is.

The only practical hope of breaking the deadlock is to mount that International Humanitarian Effort to Relocate the Palestinians; preferably under the auspices of the United Nations, et al., but without that body, if needs be.

No other solution will signify, in the long run.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their problem, not Israel's.
> 
> 
> 
> You consider you building a fence across my driveway, preventing me access to my own car, my "choice" and my "problem"?
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. The Palestinians are suffering the consequences of their own foolhardiness and intransigence. When your bombings and rocketry have forced me to take that approach, in order to keep my own family safe, and when you cannot stop me from building that fence, it is, indeed, your problem, not mine.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. When they fail to take into account Cause and Effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Like when you strip others of their inalienable rights?
Click to expand...

Yep. That too. But we get ourselves into a Chickend-and-the-Egg situation... which came first... and must establish a middle-ground or baseline, in order to untangle the knot. Starting from either polar-opposite simply will not do, regardless of how tempting that is or how righteous that sounds. Nor will a solution which endangers Israel. The Palestinians have a well-deserved reputation for an inability to find and work-with a middle-ground as a point of departure, or as an outcome, and, therefore, have blown one chance after another, over the decades, until, finally, they have run out of chances.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when they are floated or supported or arm-twisted (for adoption) by nations and leagues of nations which routinely engage in repressive and egregious human rights violations themselves; in their cases, not as a matter of Safety or Survival Expediency, but as a matter of Religious or Cultural or Ethnic prejudice, or which, themselves, have long track records in exactly the same sort of repressive behaviors. Or much worse
> 
> 
> 
> So murder is not illegal, if the accuser happens to be another murderer?
Click to expand...

I neither understand the reference nor how you derived that from its accompanying text.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The activism of the Arab League against Israel in the UN, in lining-up support for various UN Resolutions (which are not International Law) directed against Israel - cajoling other Muslim-dominated countries beyond the League, and arm-twisting the votes of other nations who are dependent upon Arab oil, is, ultimately, religion-based.
> 
> 
> 
> Then just what is "International Law"?
Click to expand...

I neither understand the reference nor how you derived that from the accompanying text.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such charges having been judged or in the process of trial by any Jursidictionally Competent legal authority, which speaks volumes about your allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the ICC?
Click to expand...

Sure. Are such charges being tried or are they scheduled to be tried by the ICC? Does the ICC have jurisdiction? Is Israel a current signatory to the Rome Treaty?



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never happened. That's where I tell you that such privately-funded (by Muslim funding, no less!) extra-judicial kangaroo courts like that - disavowed by the countries in which they are based, no less - have no competency at-law to try such matters; lacking the Jurisdiction and Authority to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who supports a country practicing administrative detention. Gimme some of that justice!
Click to expand...

Immaterial.

You made a false claim in connection with me supposedly telling you that a judge was incompetent, and were outed for that false claim.

My focus was always (and clearly) a matter of Competency At-Law; specifically, Jurisdictional Competency and Accountability and Neutrality.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued inability to grasp that concept and to acknowledge its correctness is not my cross to bear.
> 
> 
> 
> But your inabilities are.
Click to expand...

Damned weak mojo there, boy.



Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can always hope against hope.
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself!
Click to expand...

Weaker still, boy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.



International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.

The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
Click to expand...


How does BDS plan to force Israel to do so??


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
Click to expand...

And here I thought that the purpose of the BDS movement was to harm Israel in ways that cannot be attained through application of International Law...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here I thought that the purpose of the BDS movement was to harm Israel in ways that cannot be attained through application of International Law...
Click to expand...


You have the Israeli propaganda version.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought that the purpose of the BDS movement was to harm Israel in ways that cannot be attained through application of International Law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the Israeli propaganda version.
Click to expand...


Then answer my post above....


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.

The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does BDS plan to force Israel to do so??
Click to expand...


Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.

Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.



Palestine does not threaten anybody.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does BDS plan to force Israel to do so??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
Click to expand...


External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.
And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.

Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does BDS plan to force Israel to do so??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.
> And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
Click to expand...


*Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.*

The EU is currently Israel's largest trading partner by far but:

*"EU envoy: Israel will find itself increasingly isolated"*

"The EU has grown especially frustrated by Israel's repeated announcement since the talks started of new Jewish settlement building on land the Palestinians want for their future state."

"If Israel were to go down the road of continued settlement expansion and were there not to be any result in the current talks, I am afraid that what will transpire is a situation where Israel finds itself increasingly isolated," he said

"A major private Dutch pension fund announced earlier this month that it was divesting from five large Israeli banks because of their operations in the settlements, and Norwegian and Swedish funds are considering similar moves."


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
Click to expand...




 Not any more as the right wing extremists have taken it over to preach their Jew hatred, that is why so many nations have banned on racism/civil rights laws.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does BDS plan to force Israel to do so??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
Click to expand...





 Even muslims are against BDS as it stops them from getting certain foods from home. Many nations are now countering the BDS movement because it has been hijacked by NEO NAZI groups as a means of legitimizing their JEW HATREDS


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
Click to expand...





 They threaten world peace and have been the cause of most ISLAMONAZI TERRORITS ATTACKS in the west


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.
> And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.*
> 
> The EU is currently Israel's largest trading partner by far but:
> 
> *"EU envoy: Israel will find itself increasingly isolated"*
> 
> "The EU has grown especially frustrated by Israel's repeated announcement since the talks started of new Jewish settlement building on land the Palestinians want for their future state."
> 
> "If Israel were to go down the road of continued settlement expansion and were there not to be any result in the current talks, I am afraid that what will transpire is a situation where Israel finds itself increasingly isolated," he said
> 
> "A major private Dutch pension fund announced earlier this month that it was divesting from five large Israeli banks because of their operations in the settlements, and Norwegian and Swedish funds are considering similar moves."
Click to expand...





 Wont bother the Israelis as far too many EU nations will still trade with them. That Dutch pension fund is now struggling to meet its commitments and will soon either go under or go back to the Israeli banks.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threaten world peace and have been the cause of most ISLAMONAZI TERRORITS ATTACKS in the west
Click to expand...


Israel threatens world peace, not the Palestinians, they are virtually unarmed.  Palestinians have been involved in most what attacks in the west?  Get a grip, you are so excited you are having trouble typing it seems.  But, you are given to hyperbole, that's for sure.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
Click to expand...


Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument over what constitutes the body of International Law and that of Human Rights Law is, without a doubt, controversial. Some even argue that it is all illusory; in that most of the laws and rights having gone either unenforceable or largely unrealized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
Click to expand...


like Syria backed by Russia


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
> Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?
Click to expand...


Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
> Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
Click to expand...

Please continue to believe this and to pitch this publicly.

Makes our job _sooooooo_ much easier...


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
> Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
Click to expand...


Thank God most Americans are not like Defeat67's crowd who don't worry about the blood running in the streets of innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims since it is more important for them to demonize Israel.  i guess Defeat67 is not warbling away like a canary on his usual anti-Israel European forums because the other posters are doing a fine job of demonizing Israel without his presence.  He feels the readers are stupid enough here to believe every thing he says to demonize Israel, except that the majority of readers are smart enough to see right through this guy.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threaten world peace and have been the cause of most ISLAMONAZI TERRORITS ATTACKS in the west
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel threatens world peace, not the Palestinians, they are virtually unarmed.  Palestinians have been involved in most what attacks in the west?  Get a grip, you are so excited you are having trouble typing it seems.  But, you are given to hyperbole, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


What kind of peace is there available with your brethren who want to take over the world for Islam?  Why don't you get a grip and pay attention to what your fellow Muslims are doing in many locations in this world.  Hundreds of thousands are lying dead, probably hundreds of thousands are wounded, and all you can warble about is Israel.


----------



## Kondor3

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
> Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God most Americans are not like Defeat67's crowd who don't worry about the blood running in the streets of innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims since it is more important for them to demonize Israel.  i guess Defeat67 is not warbling away like a canary on his usual anti-Israel European forums because the other posters are doing a fine job of demonizing Israel without his presence.  He feels the readers are stupid enough here to believe every thing he says to demonize Israel, except that the majority of readers are smart enough to see right through this guy.
Click to expand...

That's only true if varius friends of Israel retain a significant presence on boards such as this, and routinely oppose such propagandizing. Unopposed, they get away with it.


----------



## Sally

Kondor3 said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God most Americans are not like Defeat67's crowd who don't worry about the blood running in the streets of innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims since it is more important for them to demonize Israel.  i guess Defeat67 is not warbling away like a canary on his usual anti-Israel European forums because the other posters are doing a fine job of demonizing Israel without his presence.  He feels the readers are stupid enough here to believe every thing he says to demonize Israel, except that the majority of readers are smart enough to see right through this guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only true if varius friends of Israel retain a significant presence on boards such as this, and routinely oppose such propagandizing. Unopposed, they get away with it.
Click to expand...


That's why Defeat67 probably loves the other forums he is on.  No doubt they are all made up of the antu-Israel crowd.  He admitted that on this forum poster stick up for Israel unlike the other forums he is on, and he certainly doesn't like to see this.  He, like a good Muslim, wants everyone to hate Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What is this?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> International law is rarely and selectively enforced. Generally, if someone has a friend who is a permanent member on the Security Council he can literally get away with murder.
> 
> The purpose of the BDS movement is to force compliance/enforcement of international law.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*

Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

Remember Rocco, Tinmore considers all Hamas attacks against Israel/Israeli interests as defending their country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is this?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> The enforcement of the Declaration of Principles, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Affirmation of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949,, the Rome Statues of the ICC, _(and other landmark concepts, protocols and conventions)_ depends on a number of both standards and practical conditions, the least of which is a Rabbi in the Security Council.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is an outspoken device employed against the State of Israel, it is actually a minor consequence in the overall instruments used for settlement.
> 
> The lack of major enforcement measures and sanctions against the Jewish State is due primarily because neither side clearly in the absolute right, and Israel _[unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP)]_ doesn't pose --- or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.  In fact, the last thing any of the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) nations want is to become entangled in a political-military or political-economic conflict in which they have no reasonable expectation of a satisfactory outcome.  The HoAP _[unlike the Jewish State (Israel)]_ have not reinvested in there economic infrastructure to and degree that they can actually offer the G-8, NATO/EU, or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or even threaten to pose, a deadly threat against the any NATO/EU Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is this?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
Click to expand...


Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.

Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does BDS plan to force Israel to do so??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
Click to expand...


Here is what the World sees....


BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world


results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is this?
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
Click to expand...


Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Call it whatever you deluded pro terrorists want, the article that Rocco posted is a perfect example of a threat.

And why an I hypocritical Defeat67?? At least answer that


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what the World sees....
> 
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> 
> results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with what I posted??

Also, that poll only asked 25000 people or so. 
Hardly a 'world' opinion.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the World sees....
> 
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> 
> results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with what I posted??
> 
> *Also, that poll only asked 25000 people or so.
> Hardly a 'world' opinion. *
Click to expand...


You just don't get it and whine incessantly, is your last name Weiner, Toast?


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the World sees....
> 
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> 
> results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with what I posted??
> 
> *Also, that poll only asked 25000 people or so.
> Hardly a 'world' opinion. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't get it and whine incessantly, is your last name Weiner, Toast?
Click to expand...


Which part of my post is whining?? 
All I did was point out that your previous response to my previous response to you had nothing to do with what I said.
Then I brought up how many people were polled in the poll you brought up.

I thought you were a university graduate????


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is this?
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel&#8217;s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide &#8212; And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
Click to expand...


If the Palestinian are such a threat to world peace, name two countries they threaten.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with what I posted??
> 
> *Also, that poll only asked 25000 people or so. Hardly a 'world' opinion. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't get it and whine incessantly, is your last name Weiner, Toast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of my post is whining?? All I did was point out that your previous response to my previous response to you had nothing to do with what I said.
> Then I brought up how many people were polled in the poll you brought up.
> 
> I thought you were a university graduate????
Click to expand...


Simple.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Palestinian are such a threat to world peace, name two countries they threaten.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection.

1) No one said they are a threat to world peace. You posted that Palestine threatens no one, and Rocco responded by linking an article that clearly shows Hamas OPENLY threatening to attack Israeli and American interests

2) you didn't answer my question

3) why can't something be 'resisting occupation' ( again, LOL!!) AND a threat??


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinian are such a threat to world peace, name two countries they threaten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> 1) No one said they are a threat to world peace. You posted that Palestine threatens no one, and Rocco responded by linking an article that clearly shows Hamas OPENLY threatening to attack Israeli and American interests
> 
> 2) you didn't answer my question
> 
> 3) why can't something be 'resisting occupation' ( again, LOL!!) AND a threat??
Click to expand...


The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/I][/B][/SIZE]
> You just don't get it and whine incessantly, is your last name Weiner, Toast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post is whining?? All I did was point out that your previous response to my previous response to you had nothing to do with what I said.
> Then I brought up how many people were polled in the poll you brought up.
> 
> I thought you were a university graduate????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.

Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW. 
You guys are like the three stooges 
But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinian are such a threat to world peace, name two countries they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> 1) No one said they are a threat to world peace. You posted that Palestine threatens no one, and Rocco responded by linking an article that clearly shows Hamas OPENLY threatening to attack Israeli and American interests
> 
> 2) you didn't answer my question
> 
> 3) why can't something be 'resisting occupation' ( again, LOL!!) AND a threat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
Click to expand...


Again, the example brought up by Rocco is a clear threat by Hamas, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
Hamas constantly threatens Israel and her security. That is not up for debate..


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it whatever you deluded pro terrorists want, the article that Rocco posted is a perfect example of a threat.
> 
> And why an I hypocritical Defeat67?? At least answer that
Click to expand...


Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post is whining?? All I did was point out that your previous response to my previous response to you had nothing to do with what I said.
> Then I brought up how many people were polled in the poll you brought up.
> 
> I thought you were a university graduate????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.
> 
> Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
> You guys are like the three stooges
> But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!
Click to expand...


The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it whatever you deluded pro terrorists want, the article that Rocco posted is a perfect example of a threat.
> 
> And why an I hypocritical Defeat67?? At least answer that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
Click to expand...


Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.
> 
> Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
> You guys are like the three stooges
> But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
Click to expand...


I brought up how many people were polled in this 'worldwide' poll.
That's not whining. What you're doing now is more if an example of whining.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it whatever you deluded pro terrorists want, the article that Rocco posted is a perfect example of a threat.
> 
> And why an I hypocritical Defeat67?? At least answer that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
Click to expand...


Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.
> 
> Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
> You guys are like the three stooges
> But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I brought up how many people were polled in this 'worldwide' poll.
> That's not whining. What you're doing now is more if an example of whining.
Click to expand...


Well then Dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
Click to expand...


  

Of course he does Tinmore, of course he does.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bbc did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i brought up how many people were polled in this 'worldwide' poll.
> That's not whining. What you're doing now is more if an example of whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well then dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?
Click to expand...


26 000


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does Tinmore, of course he does.
Click to expand...


Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i brought up how many people were polled in this 'worldwide' poll.
> That's not whining. What you're doing now is more if an example of whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well then dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 000
Click to expand...


Just as I thought Dr. Weiner, you were whining, but I doubt that extra polling would have brought Israel up from the dungeon of humanity.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
Click to expand...

Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26 000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought Dr. Weiner, you were whining, but I doubt that extra polling would have brought Israel up from the dungeon of humanity.
Click to expand...


Just a me I thought, you still couldn't point out where in my original post there was any whining


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.
Click to expand...


I ain't.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does Tinmore, of course he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.
Click to expand...


That's because Rocco has a brain and knows the Europeans were not sent there to take over anything and he also knows there was no Palestinian country then.

At least Rocco knows WHEN Palestine became on official State  

Imagine debating with someone about a country and the other guy not only doesn't know when that country came into existence, but STILL argues about it after the truth was brought out to him.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ain't.
Click to expand...

Jumped on that like a bullfrog on a Junebug. But you're 110% wrong.


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.
Click to expand...


The sad part Hoss is that he isn't.


----------



## toastman

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jumped on that like a bullfrog on a Junebug. But you're 110% wrong.
Click to expand...


Tinmore wrong about something?? No way!!!!


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does Tinmore, of course he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because Rocco has a brain and knows the European were not sent there to take over anything and he also knows there was no Palestinian country then.
> 
> At least Rocco knows WHEN Palestine became on official State
> 
> Imagine debating with someone about a country and the other guy not only doesn't know when that country came into existence, but STILL argues about it after the truth was brought out to him.
Click to expand...


That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.

When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because Rocco has a brain and knows the European were not sent there to take over anything and he also knows there was no Palestinian country then.
> 
> At least Rocco knows WHEN Palestine became on official State
> 
> Imagine debating with someone about a country and the other guy not only doesn't know when that country came into existence, but STILL argues about it after the truth was brought out to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.

Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because Rocco has a brain and knows the European were not sent there to take over anything and he also knows there was no Palestinian country then.
> 
> At least Rocco knows WHEN Palestine became on official State
> 
> Imagine debating with someone about a country and the other guy not only doesn't know when that country came into existence, but STILL argues about it after the truth was brought out to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...
Click to expand...


Oh really? What question have I not answered?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
Click to expand...


You answer most questions.
But rarely correctly..


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You answer most questions.
> But rarely correctly..
Click to expand...


I post actual legal documents not Israeli propaganda.

Shame on me.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
Click to expand...

Several of mine come to mind, in circumstances where you conceding an obvious point would have weakened your case for the Palestinians, and I've seen you evade such answers in connection with other colleagues as well. Frankly, you have a reputation around here for the very sort of evasiveness that you accuse Rocco of.

Do I have a specific example to point to on short notice? No. Not really. It's not worth the effort. But I stand by the observation, that you engage in the very sort of evasiveness that you are accusing Rocco of here. Our colleagues can weigh-in with affirmations or denials at their discretion. I'm not going to burn up any clock time on that.


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jumped on that like a bullfrog on a Junebug. But you're 110% wrong.
Click to expand...


Well, 'yal remember that 3 minute Gettysburg address by Lincoln, but don't remember the great orator who was the primary speaker and spoke for 3 hors, darn I can't remember his name or what he was talking about?


Do you Hoss?  Rocco is great if you actually see the documents and I appreciate his gigantic efforts, but sometime too much detail ruins a good painting.

Writing simply is an art form,


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you ain't joking, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad part Hoss is that he isn't.
Click to expand...

We gotta give Tinny credit for obstinance though. He hangs onto his fantasies like a Rottweiler with a ham bone. Won't give up.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You answer most questions.
> But rarely correctly..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I post actual legal documents not Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Shame on me.
Click to expand...

Wow, it must be so hard to copy paste a document from a website!
Most of the time those 'documents' have NOTHING to do with what you were asked.
On top of that, you post Palestinian Propaganda on a daily basis.
You are known for that Tinmore, as much as you might deny that.


----------



## toastman

Ob, and Rocco posts documents as well, so what's your point? 
Sk do I..


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Several of mine come to mind, in circumstances where you conceding an obvious point would have weakened your case for the Palestinians, and I've seen you evade such answers in connection with other colleagues as well. Frankly, you have a reputation around here for the very sort of evasiveness that you accuse Rocco of.
> 
> Do I have a specific example to point to on short notice? No. Not really. It's not worth the effort. But I stand by the observation, that you engage in the very sort of evasiveness that you are accusing Rocco of here. Our colleagues can weigh-in with affirmations or denials at their discretion. I'm not going to burn up any clock time on that.
Click to expand...




> *Do I have a specific example to point to on short notice? No. Not really.*


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> Jumped on that like a bullfrog on a Junebug. But you're 110% wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, 'yal remember that 3 minute Gettysburg address by Lincoln, but don't remember the great orator who was the primary speaker and spoke for 3 hors, darn I can't remember his name or what he was talking about?
> 
> 
> Do you Hoss?  Rocco is great if you actually see the documents and I appreciate his gigantic efforts, but sometime too much detail ruins a good painting.
> 
> Writing simply is an art form,
Click to expand...

It was either Edward Everett or Rush Limbaugh. Both great oraters.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Writing simply is an art form,


True enough.

Less is more.

But I'll even take it a step further.

Finding a balance between the Details and the Sweeping Generalities is crucial, and knowing when to employ one or the other is the highest form of that particular art.

Something we can all aspire to, with some of us closer to that goal than others, at any given point in time.


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jumped on that like a bullfrog on a Junebug. But you're 110% wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 'yal remember that 3 minute Gettysburg address by Lincoln, but don't remember the great orator who was the primary speaker and spoke for 3 hors, darn I can't remember his name or what he was talking about?
> 
> 
> Do you Hoss?  Rocco is great if you actually see the documents and I appreciate his gigantic efforts, but sometime too much detail ruins a good painting.
> 
> Writing simply is an art form,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was either Edward Everett or Rush Limbaugh. Both great oraters.
Click to expand...


Tell the truth now no fibbing, did you look it up?


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 'yal remember that 3 minute Gettysburg address by Lincoln, but don't remember the great orator who was the primary speaker and spoke for 3 hors, darn I can't remember his name or what he was talking about?
> 
> 
> Do you Hoss?  Rocco is great if you actually see the documents and I appreciate his gigantic efforts, but sometime too much detail ruins a good painting.
> 
> Writing simply is an art form,
> 
> 
> 
> It was either Edward Everett or Rush Limbaugh. Both great oraters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell the truth now no fibbing, did you look it up?
Click to expand...

Yeah, tonight my googler is hornier than a billy goat. Struck paydirt.


----------



## Billo_Really

P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.


That is pretty whack!


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threaten world peace and have been the cause of most ISLAMONAZI TERRORITS ATTACKS in the west
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel threatens world peace, not the Palestinians, they are virtually unarmed.  Palestinians have been involved in most what attacks in the west?  Get a grip, you are so excited you are having trouble typing it seems.  But, you are given to hyperbole, that's for sure.
Click to expand...




 Do explain the 100 or so rockets fired at Israel by the Palestinians, the almost endless supply of depleted uranium bullets for the Kalashnikovs and the Kalashnikovs themselves. The Improvised Explosives and commercially made explosives that seem to be self exploding at the moment. Then we have grenades, RPG,s, anti tank weapons and many small arms and knives. So hardly virtually unarmed with all the weapons smuggled in from Syria and Iran. If we did not have Palestinian muslim terrorists we would not have had over 1,000 muslim terrorist attacks in the west supporting them.

 FACTS beat your islamonazi lies and propaganda every time


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
> Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
Click to expand...




 No it is a fact shown on this board many times with maps from different era's, like these












 So a general area and not a distinct stand alone nation.


----------



## Phoenall

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a general area, you fucking idiot. It's like saying Asia doesn't threaten anyone. Some people in Asia are cool, some are not. Same with Palestine, all the fucking arabs are assholes, and most of the rest probably aren't such big assholes as fucking arabs.
> Hey, it's getting close to the top of the hour, don't you have to go kiss a carpet somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God most Americans are not like Defeat67's crowd who don't worry about the blood running in the streets of innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims since it is more important for them to demonize Israel.  i guess Defeat67 is not warbling away like a canary on his usual anti-Israel European forums because the other posters are doing a fine job of demonizing Israel without his presence.  He feels the readers are stupid enough here to believe every thing he says to demonize Israel, except that the majority of readers are smart enough to see right through this guy.
Click to expand...




 Such things like this are totally ignored by the ISLAMONAZI LYING PROPAGANDISTS, and this is a Palestinian source

UNRWA criticizes Palestinian infighting | JPost | Israel News

 The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) called on the different Palestinian factions Sunday to stop the infighting in order to solve a developing electricity crisis in Hamas-run Gaza.

 The source is UNRWA for the hard of understanding ISLAMONAZI LTING PROPAGANDISTS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/global/the-bane-of-palestinian-infighting.html?_r=0

 But naming a new prime minister will accomplish little in furthering a settlement unless the Palestinians can also overcome the patronage, corruption and infighting in their security forces

Abu Toameh: Palestinian Infighting Makes Peace Unlikely :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

 The rivalry between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Fatah in the West Bank is a major hurdle to any peace deal with Israel, writes Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, a former correspondent for the PLO newspaper Al Fajr.

"The fight between Hamas and Fatah is not a power struggle between good guys and bad guys: it is a rivalry between bad guys and bad guys," writes Abu Toameh in a column for the Hudson Institute. It is driven by a thirst for money and power.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What is this?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not threaten anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
Click to expand...




As far as any intelligent person is concerned this is a direct threat to any nation that has friendly relations with Israel

  The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israels Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide  And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S.

 Time for these nations to stop funding Palestinian terrorism and leave them to fend for themselves


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel says that it can go it alone, but the truth is that Israel has always relied on external support. This support is starting to dry up.
> 
> Some say that BDS is nothing to worry about . Israel spends a a lot of time and resources to counter BDS so it is really a lot more than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what the World sees....
> 
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> 
> results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.
Click to expand...




 How many times have you been shown that this poll was biased against Israel right from the start. Why is it that the EU have now stopped funding the electricity bill for gaza if the Israelis are so unpopular


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> External support?? What a load of BS. Israel has support from the U.S only, from what I see.And you have no idea what Israel would be like without alone.
> The Palestinians on the other hand would shrivel like a prune without external support.
> 
> Also, you didn't come close to answering my question..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the World sees....
> 
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> 
> results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you been shown that this poll was biased against Israel right from the start. Why is it that the EU have now stopped funding the electricity bill for gaza if the Israelis are so unpopular
Click to expand...


Another whiner...Show us the bias?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.
Click to expand...





 No it wasn't it was just wanton ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM against civilians. Something that you whinge and whine about when you think it is happening to the poor Palestinian TERRORISTS. All the ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM are doing is turning more and more people against them and very soon many will be fleeing Europe because of retaliations.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the World sees....
> 
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> 
> results of poll, Israel is 4th from the bottom beating out N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran in World Popularity. Israel would make Stalin blush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with what I posted??
> 
> *Also, that poll only asked 25000 people or so.
> Hardly a 'world' opinion. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't get it and whine incessantly, is your last name Weiner, Toast?
Click to expand...





Now if I was to ask the members of this board a sample question from that poll would you expect the answer to be Israel or Palestine.
 Here is the sample question 

 Out of these countries which do you think is the most unpopular


 Germany
 Russia
 Italy
 CAR
 Sudan
 Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Palestinian are such a threat to world peace, name two countries they threaten.
Click to expand...




 Germany ( munich Olympics )

 U.K    (London transport bombings )

 USA  ( WTC 3 times

 Will these do, as I know the muslim communities that I come across are all pro Palestinian and threaten locals because of the UK's friendly relations with Israel


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with what I posted??
> 
> *Also, that poll only asked 25000 people or so.
> Hardly a 'world' opinion. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't get it and whine incessantly, is your last name Weiner, Toast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if I was to ask the members of this board a sample question from that poll would you expect the answer to be Israel or Palestine.
> Here is the sample question
> 
> Out of these countries which do you think is the most unpopular
> 
> 
> Germany
> Russia
> Italy
> CAR
> Sudan
> Israel
Click to expand...


You or the BBC, take your Meds!!!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Palestinian are such a threat to world peace, name two countries they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> 1) No one said they are a threat to world peace. You posted that Palestine threatens no one, and Rocco responded by linking an article that clearly shows Hamas OPENLY threatening to attack Israeli and American interests
> 
> 2) you didn't answer my question
> 
> 3) why can't something be 'resisting occupation' ( again, LOL!!) AND a threat??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
Click to expand...




 So the threat to me and my family is from the pro Palestinian muslim invaders/occupiers. Does this mean I can bomb their children in school, fire bomb their mosques when prayers are taking place.

 Because this is what you have just stated the pro Palestinian ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM can do as legitimate defence of palestine


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it whatever you deluded pro terrorists want, the article that Rocco posted is a perfect example of a threat.
> 
> And why an I hypocritical Defeat67?? At least answer that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
Click to expand...





 Would it be a threat if Israel said the same thing about Palestine and the Palestinians, if not then why not using your same criteria ?


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> 1) No one said they are a threat to world peace. You posted that Palestine threatens no one, and Rocco responded by linking an article that clearly shows Hamas OPENLY threatening to attack Israeli and American interests
> 
> 2) you didn't answer my question
> 
> 3) why can't something be 'resisting occupation' ( again, LOL!!) AND a threat??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the threat to me and my family is from the pro Palestinian muslim invaders/occupiers. Does this mean I can bomb their children in school, fire bomb their mosques when prayers are taking place.
> Because this is what you have just stated the pro Palestinian ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM can do as legitimate defence of palestine
Click to expand...


How about the Israeli Hero Dr. Goldstein? Do you worship that murderer who shot people dead while praying in their Mosque?

Take your Meds.


----------



## MrMax

* I will not Bow!*

Said all the carpet kissers before they bowed down and kissed one.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a "general area" like Asia? Good Lord, this the general knowledge of the majority of the American pro Israel. crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God most Americans are not like Defeat67's crowd who don't worry about the blood running in the streets of innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims since it is more important for them to demonize Israel.  i guess Defeat67 is not warbling away like a canary on his usual anti-Israel European forums because the other posters are doing a fine job of demonizing Israel without his presence.  He feels the readers are stupid enough here to believe every thing he says to demonize Israel, except that the majority of readers are smart enough to see right through this guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such things like this are totally ignored by the ISLAMONAZI LYING PROPAGANDISTS, and this is a Palestinian source
> 
> UNRWA criticizes Palestinian infighting | JPost | Israel News
> 
> The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) called on the different Palestinian factions Sunday to stop the infighting in order to solve a developing electricity crisis in Hamas-run Gaza.
> 
> The source is UNRWA for the hard of understanding ISLAMONAZI LTING PROPAGANDISTS.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/global/the-bane-of-palestinian-infighting.html?_r=0
> 
> But naming a new prime minister will accomplish little in furthering a settlement unless the Palestinians can also overcome the patronage, corruption and infighting in their security forces
> 
> Abu Toameh: Palestinian Infighting Makes Peace Unlikely :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism
> 
> The rivalry between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Fatah in the West Bank is a major hurdle to any peace deal with Israel, writes Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, a former correspondent for the PLO newspaper Al Fajr.
> 
> "The fight between Hamas and Fatah is not a power struggle between good guys and bad guys: it is a rivalry between bad guys and bad guys," writes Abu Toameh in a column for the Hudson Institute. It is driven by a thirst for money and power.
Click to expand...


Keeping the lie of "infighting" alive. It is the Palestinians V. a US proxy army.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKzP9EhJMY]Iran-Contra 2.0- how bush armed Fatah to fight Hamas - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MrMax

^^^^^^^^^^ Tin hypocrite, somebody's got to keep those sharia loving assholes busy, since they want to rule the world with their pedophile religion, might as well stop them on their doorstep and watch them grovel for food and other basics.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> 1) No one said they are a threat to world peace. You posted that Palestine threatens no one, and Rocco responded by linking an article that clearly shows Hamas OPENLY threatening to attack Israeli and American interests
> 
> 2) you didn't answer my question
> 
> 3) why can't something be 'resisting occupation' ( again, LOL!!) AND a threat??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the threat to me and my family is from the pro Palestinian muslim invaders/occupiers. Does this mean I can bomb their children in school, fire bomb their mosques when prayers are taking place.
> 
> Because this is what you have just stated the pro Palestinian ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM can do as legitimate defence of palestine
Click to expand...


Name calling.

you lose.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.
> 
> Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
> You guys are like the three stooges
> But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
Click to expand...






 NO they produced one of their famous ANTI SEMITIC polls with the questions weighted against Israel, and have been censured for it by the UK government


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it whatever you deluded pro terrorists want, the article that Rocco posted is a perfect example of a threat.
> 
> And why an I hypocritical Defeat67?? At least answer that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
Click to expand...




 Everyones a threat to tinny as he does not look at unbiased sites for evidence


----------



## Statistikhengst

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.
> 
> Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
> You guys are like the three stooges
> But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO they produced one of their famous ANTI SEMITIC polls with the questions weighted against Israel, and have been censured for it by the UK government
Click to expand...


I find that the results of BBC polls are most excellent for lining my bird-cage.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the threat to me and my family is from the pro Palestinian muslim invaders/occupiers. Does this mean I can bomb their children in school, fire bomb their mosques when prayers are taking place.
> 
> Because this is what you have just stated the pro Palestinian ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM can do as legitimate defence of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name calling.
> 
> you lose.
Click to expand...


Is that what arabs consider winning? A round of name calling? What's next? A game of marbles?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.



P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yeah, we're funny like that.

If I answer in a short, abbreviated fashion, you want "links" and cherry pick the sound bites.  If I anticipate your counter-point, you say it is "verbose" and full of "smoke;" but don't challenge the content; merely the manner of presentation.

*(BACKGROUND & QUESTION)*

So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.

So, if this is true, then why should any other country care about the dispute if it _(as you claim)_ is harmless _(not a threat)_ to them?

You are always quite nebulas as to the authority the Palestinians claim to conduct violent and hostile resistance.

Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?  
Where is the exemption cited?
*&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).​
You are always quite careful to avoid a clear and concise answer to the questions about the current negotiating position of the Palestinians.  The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) is quite clear on the issue of borders and their position.

Do you agree with the PLO-NAD that:


Key Facts
The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt. 
A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.


Our Position
A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
Borders:
Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco knows what he's talking about concerning the Israel Palestine debate. You rarely do.
> You only say this about Rocco because he is a threat to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
Click to expand...






Complete and utter BULLSHIT


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^ Tin hypocrite, somebody's got to keep those sharia loving assholes busy, since they want to rule the world with their pedophile religion, might as well stop them on their doorstep and watch them grovel for food and other basics.



More illegal external interference.

The root of the problem.


----------



## montelatici

For the Zionutters the only unbiased evidence is Zionist propaganda.  While waiting for the 2014 ratings, in 2013 it looks like Israel is still vying for last place in terms most unpopular countries and is still firmly entrenched in the pariah category.

"Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally." 

BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world

And, the BBC was not ever censured for the polls you lying s.o.s.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up how many people were polled in this 'worldwide' poll.
> That's not whining. What you're doing now is more if an example of whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then Dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?
Click to expand...




 Scientific polling also requires unbiased questions and a range of possible answers. It does not include giving a short list of possible answers.  Which is why the Poll was not accepted by the BBC watchdog as being UNBIASED and NON RACIST


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i brought up how many people were polled in this 'worldwide' poll.
> That's not whining. What you're doing now is more if an example of whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well then dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 000
Click to expand...




 It could be as few as 1,000 if the poll is done without bias and anti Semitism, but to weigh the questions against Israel at the very outset shows that the BBC wanted to manipulate the results.

 Here is the poll in full

 I would now like to ask your impressions of some specific countries.
M1A. Please tell me if you think each of the following countries is having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world.
ROTATE
at) China
01  Mainly positive
02  Mainly negative
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
03  Depends
04  Neither, neutral
99  DK/NA
bt) France
ct) The United States
dt) The European Union
et) Japan
ft) Israel
gt) North Korea
ht) Canada
M1B. Please tell me if you think each of the following countries is having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world.
ROTATE
at) The United Kingdom
01  Mainly positive
02  Mainly negative
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
03  Depends
04  Neither, neutral
99  DK/NA
bt) Russia
ct) India
dt) Iran
et) Brazil
ft) Pakistan
gt) Germany
ht) South Africa
it) South Korea


 Hardly a scientific poll is it


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does Tinmore, of course he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.
Click to expand...




 Then the arab muslims should never have invaded should they. But if you mean the Jews they were invited to migrate, first by the Ottoman muslims and then by the arab muslims via the LoN. 
 And no gun of any foreign nation helped the Jews until after the last arab army invasion in 1973


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is an old government person. They think funny like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yeah, we're funny like that.
> 
> If I answer in a short, abbreviated fashion, you want "links" and cherry pick the sound bites.  If I anticipate your counter-point, you say it is "verbose" and full of "smoke;" but don't challenge the content; merely the manner of presentation.
> 
> *(BACKGROUND & QUESTION)*
> 
> So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.
> 
> So, if this is true, then why should any other country care about the dispute if it _(as you claim)_ is harmless _(not a threat)_ to them?
> 
> You are always quite nebulas as to the authority the Palestinians claim to conduct violent and hostile resistance.
> 
> Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?
> Where is the exemption cited?
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).​
> You are always quite careful to avoid a clear and concise answer to the questions about the current negotiating position of the Palestinians.  The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) is quite clear on the issue of borders and their position.
> 
> Do you agree with the PLO-NAD that:
> 
> 
> Key Facts
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> Our Position
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
> Borders:
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


_"Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?"_



UNGA Resolution 2649


Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*

Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination *to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance*, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;

This covers both the right to resist by any means and the right to seek material assistance (including armament).

So go back and conjure up some new BS that you can fling around.


----------



## Statistikhengst

montelatici said:


> For the Zionutters the only unbiased evidence is Zionist propaganda.  While waiting for the 2014 ratings, in 2013 it looks like Israel is still vying for last place in terms most unpopular countries and is still firmly entrenched in the pariah category.
> 
> "Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally."
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> And, the BBC was not ever censured for the polls you lying s.o.s.




So, "Sborra in Bocca",  time for some easy math:


7,000,000,000 homo sapiens on the planet.

26,000 homo sapiens in the survey


That it 0.00037% of the worlds population.

that is 37 ten-thousandths of 1%, smaller than the smallest drop of water you could imagine in a huge bucket.

The poll releases no internals. We do not know where those 26,000 are geographically located and if the proportions for such a ridiculous study are even close to what they should be.

For all we know, among the 26,000 interviewees, 500 are from the PA and only 6 are from Israel.

The poll is hardly representative.

It should be also noted that BBC's election polling is notorously off, almost as bad as Gallup is in the USA.


With enough criminal energy and a lot of propaganda, I could also make a poll look like 45% of people on the planet actually liked Hitler, a result I bet you would like, little Duce. But that doesn't mean it would be true.

Nuff said.
 [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=15726]Hossfly[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36154]Roudy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26838]Ropey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION]


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.



So, you think that the Palestinian's resistance to Israel's aggression is the problem not Israel's aggression itself?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> well then dr. Weiner , what should that number be since scientific polling requires a certain number of valid responses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26 000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought Dr. Weiner, you were whining, but I doubt that extra polling would have brought Israel up from the dungeon of humanity.
Click to expand...




 Maybe a more scientific poll would and not one based on two questions, like this from the BBC

 I would now like to ask your impressions of some specific countries.
M1A. Please tell me if you think each of the following countries is having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world.
ROTATE
at) China
01  Mainly positive
02  Mainly negative
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
03  Depends
04  Neither, neutral
99  DK/NA
bt) France
ct) The United States
dt) The European Union
et) Japan
ft) Israel
gt) North Korea
ht) Canada
M1B. Please tell me if you think each of the following countries is having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world.
ROTATE
at) The United Kingdom
01  Mainly positive
02  Mainly negative
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
03  Depends
04  Neither, neutral
99  DK/NA
bt) Russia
ct) India
dt) Iran
et) Brazil
ft) Pakistan
gt) Germany
ht) South Africa
it) South Korea


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).



Name a peaceful means that would work.

The Palestinians suggest enforcing international law.

What would you suggest?


----------



## montelatici

Statistikhengst said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Zionutters the only unbiased evidence is Zionist propaganda.  While waiting for the 2014 ratings, in 2013 it looks like Israel is still vying for last place in terms most unpopular countries and is still firmly entrenched in the pariah category.
> 
> "Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally."
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> And, the BBC was not ever censured for the polls you lying s.o.s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, "Sborra in Bocca",  time for some easy math:
> 
> 
> 7,000,000,000 homo sapiens on the planet.
> 
> 26,000 homo sapiens in the survey
> 
> 
> That it 0.00037% of the worlds population.
> 
> that is 37 ten-thousandths of 1%, smaller than the smallest drop of water you could imagine in a huge bucket.
> 
> The poll releases no internals. We do not know where those 26,000 are geographically located and if the proportions for such a ridiculous study are even close to what they should be.
> 
> For all we know, among the 26,000 interviewees, 500 are from the PA and only 6 are from Israel.
> 
> The poll is hardly representative.
> 
> It should be also noted that BBC's election polling is notorously off, almost as bad as Gallup is in the USA.
> 
> 
> With enough criminal energy and a lot of propaganda, I could also make a poll look like 45% of people on the planet actually liked Hitler, a result I bet you would like, little Duce. But that doesn't mean it would be true.
> 
> Nuff said.
> [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=15726]Hossfly[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36154]Roudy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26838]Ropey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Oh dear, yet another poll is consistent with the BBC poll:

"new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan."

European Poll: Israel Biggest Threat To World Peace | The Jewish Federations of North America


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, pbel, toastman, _et al_,

We've discussed this before - several times; the very same poll, and its flaws.



Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 26 000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought Dr. Weiner, you were whining, but I doubt that extra polling would have brought Israel up from the dungeon of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a more scientific poll would and not one based on two questions, like this from the BBC
> 
> I would now like to ask your impressions of some specific countries.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Our friend knows this is flawed.  We outlined the nature of the poll in a previous discussion in the "The BDS Movement Is About Dismantling Israel" Thread (Post #64 03-30-2014, 11:45 AM).  

Pro-Palestinian supporters periodically bring this poll to our attention, hoping that our memory is short and we won't remember.  It has a good headline they can use as a sound bite.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco does not think that thousands of foreign settlers sent to Palestine by a foreign organization to take over the country and protected by the gun of a foreign superpower can be considered external interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because Rocco has a brain and knows the European were not sent there to take over anything and he also knows there was no Palestinian country then.
> 
> At least Rocco knows WHEN Palestine became on official State
> 
> Imagine debating with someone about a country and the other guy not only doesn't know when that country came into existence, but STILL argues about it after the truth was brought out to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
Click to expand...





 No he just didn't give you the answer you wanted, he gave you the facts.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

*BLUF:* Good Faith - Peace Talk - Negotiations

The very thing the Palestinians are trying to weasel out of.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name a peaceful means that would work.
> 
> The Palestinians suggest enforcing international law.
> 
> What would you suggest?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Now who is evading the question?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because Rocco has a brain and knows the European were not sent there to take over anything and he also knows there was no Palestinian country then.
> 
> At least Rocco knows WHEN Palestine became on official State
> 
> Imagine debating with someone about a country and the other guy not only doesn't know when that country came into existence, but STILL argues about it after the truth was brought out to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he just didn't give you the answer you wanted, he gave you the facts.
Click to expand...


Really, what was his answer?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* Good Faith - Peace Talk - Negotiations
> 
> The very thing the Palestinians are trying to weasel out of.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name a peaceful means that would work.
> 
> The Palestinians suggest enforcing international law.
> 
> What would you suggest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now who is evading the question?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?

I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Zionutters the only unbiased evidence is Zionist propaganda.  While waiting for the 2014 ratings, in 2013 it looks like Israel is still vying for last place in terms most unpopular countries and is still firmly entrenched in the pariah category.
> 
> "Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally."
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> And, the BBC was not ever censured for the polls you lying s.o.s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, "Sborra in Bocca",  time for some easy math:
> 
> 
> 7,000,000,000 homo sapiens on the planet.
> 
> 26,000 homo sapiens in the survey
> 
> 
> That it 0.00037% of the worlds population.
> 
> that is 37 ten-thousandths of 1%, smaller than the smallest drop of water you could imagine in a huge bucket.
> 
> The poll releases no internals. We do not know where those 26,000 are geographically located and if the proportions for such a ridiculous study are even close to what they should be.
> 
> For all we know, among the 26,000 interviewees, 500 are from the PA and only 6 are from Israel.
> 
> The poll is hardly representative.
> 
> It should be also noted that BBC's election polling is notorously off, almost as bad as Gallup is in the USA.
> 
> 
> With enough criminal energy and a lot of propaganda, I could also make a poll look like 45% of people on the planet actually liked Hitler, a result I bet you would like, little Duce. But that doesn't mean it would be true.
> 
> Nuff said.
> [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=15726]Hossfly[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36154]Roudy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26838]Ropey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear, yet another poll is consistent with the BBC poll:
> 
> "new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan."
> 
> European Poll: Israel Biggest Threat To World Peace | The Jewish Federations of North America
Click to expand...

Hossfly's One Man Poll concluded that Russia is the worlds biggest threat to world peace as a country.
Hossfly's One Man Poll concluded that Al Qaeda is the worlds biggest threat to world peace as an entity.
Hossfly's concensus deems Al Qaeda to be the worlds biggest threat to peace. Without exception.
Screw all other polls.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he just didn't give you the answer you wanted, he gave you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, what was his answer?
Click to expand...

Basically, Tinmore, his answer was: Palestinians need to act like educated adults rather than permanently aroused hornets.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Chance are, he's just returnin' the favor, Tinny...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
Click to expand...




 Plenty


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? What question have I not answered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You answer most questions.
> But rarely correctly..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I post actual legal documents not Israeli propaganda.
> 
> Shame on me.
Click to expand...




 No you post ISLAMONAZI documents and propaganda


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he just didn't give you the answer you wanted, he gave you the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what was his answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically, Tinmore, his answer was: Palestinians need to act like educated adults rather than permanently aroused hornets.
Click to expand...


Of course those who bat the hornets nest are not responsible for anything.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the threat to me and my family is from the pro Palestinian muslim invaders/occupiers. Does this mean I can bomb their children in school, fire bomb their mosques when prayers are taking place.
> Because this is what you have just stated the pro Palestinian ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM can do as legitimate defence of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Israeli Hero Dr. Goldstein? Do you worship that murderer who shot people dead while praying in their Mosque?
> 
> Take your Meds.
Click to expand...




 While the balance of his mind was disturbed by the actions of the terrorists that had just tortured and defiled his friends before going to the mosque. But no answer can I act as you claim the Palestinians can act for the same reasons ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God most Americans are not like Defeat67's crowd who don't worry about the blood running in the streets of innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims since it is more important for them to demonize Israel.  i guess Defeat67 is not warbling away like a canary on his usual anti-Israel European forums because the other posters are doing a fine job of demonizing Israel without his presence.  He feels the readers are stupid enough here to believe every thing he says to demonize Israel, except that the majority of readers are smart enough to see right through this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such things like this are totally ignored by the ISLAMONAZI LYING PROPAGANDISTS, and this is a Palestinian source
> 
> UNRWA criticizes Palestinian infighting | JPost | Israel News
> 
> The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) called on the different Palestinian factions Sunday to stop the infighting in order to solve a developing electricity crisis in Hamas-run Gaza.
> 
> The source is UNRWA for the hard of understanding ISLAMONAZI LTING PROPAGANDISTS.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/global/the-bane-of-palestinian-infighting.html?_r=0
> 
> But naming a new prime minister will accomplish little in furthering a settlement unless the Palestinians can also overcome the patronage, corruption and infighting in their security forces
> 
> Abu Toameh: Palestinian Infighting Makes Peace Unlikely :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism
> 
> The rivalry between Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Fatah in the West Bank is a major hurdle to any peace deal with Israel, writes Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, a former correspondent for the PLO newspaper Al Fajr.
> 
> "The fight between Hamas and Fatah is not a power struggle between good guys and bad guys: it is a rivalry between bad guys and bad guys," writes Abu Toameh in a column for the Hudson Institute. It is driven by a thirst for money and power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keeping the lie of "infighting" alive. It is the Palestinians V. a US proxy army.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKzP9EhJMY]Iran-Contra 2.0- how bush armed Fatah to fight Hamas - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...





 So two ISLAMONAZI sources are wrong ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The threat is from the occupier. The Palestinians merely respond. They are not aggressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the threat to me and my family is from the pro Palestinian muslim invaders/occupiers. Does this mean I can bomb their children in school, fire bomb their mosques when prayers are taking place.
> 
> Because this is what you have just stated the pro Palestinian ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM can do as legitimate defence of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name calling.
> 
> you lose.
Click to expand...



 Have they been called that by the UN and Egypt, EU, America because of their terrorist acts. No name calling when ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM ARE INVOLVED


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> For the Zionutters the only unbiased evidence is Zionist propaganda.  While waiting for the 2014 ratings, in 2013 it looks like Israel is still vying for last place in terms most unpopular countries and is still firmly entrenched in the pariah category.
> 
> "Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally."
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> And, the BBC was not ever censured for the polls you lying s.o.s.





 See mu post that gives the POLL in full, all 2 questions of it.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yeah, we're funny like that.
> 
> If I answer in a short, abbreviated fashion, you want "links" and cherry pick the sound bites.  If I anticipate your counter-point, you say it is "verbose" and full of "smoke;" but don't challenge the content; merely the manner of presentation.
> 
> *(BACKGROUND & QUESTION)*
> 
> So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.
> 
> So, if this is true, then why should any other country care about the dispute if it _(as you claim)_ is harmless _(not a threat)_ to them?
> 
> You are always quite nebulas as to the authority the Palestinians claim to conduct violent and hostile resistance.
> 
> Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?
> Where is the exemption cited?
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).​
> You are always quite careful to avoid a clear and concise answer to the questions about the current negotiating position of the Palestinians.  The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) is quite clear on the issue of borders and their position.
> 
> Do you agree with the PLO-NAD that:
> 
> 
> Key Facts
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> Our Position
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
> Borders:
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?"_
> 
> 
> 
> UNGA Resolution 2649
> 
> 
> Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*
> 
> Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination *to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance*, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> This covers both the right to resist by any means and the right to seek material assistance (including armament).
> 
> So go back and conjure up some new BS that you can fling around.
Click to expand...





 Well I believe that my country is under colonial and alien domination so can I use any means at my disposal to get rid of the muslim invaders ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that the Palestinian's resistance to Israel's aggression is the problem not Israel's aggression itself?
Click to expand...




 It is the Palestinians aggression to Israel's very existence that is the problem, and Jordan showed the way to cure this


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.



I didn't start it. Others brought you up. It seems that you are considered the intellectual elite of posters on this board. I agree. I appreciate your interaction. Of course that does not mean that I agree with you.

Most people just post drivel and clutter. They just throw stones and call names.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

This General Assembly Resolution is neither "international law" (non-binding) or applicable.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco posts full pages of excess verbosity based on false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yeah, we're funny like that.
> 
> If I answer in a short, abbreviated fashion, you want "links" and cherry pick the sound bites.  If I anticipate your counter-point, you say it is "verbose" and full of "smoke;" but don't challenge the content; merely the manner of presentation.
> 
> *(BACKGROUND & QUESTION)*
> 
> So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.
> 
> So, if this is true, then why should any other country care about the dispute if it _(as you claim)_ is harmless _(not a threat)_ to them?
> 
> You are always quite nebulas as to the authority the Palestinians claim to conduct violent and hostile resistance.
> 
> Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?
> Where is the exemption cited?
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).​
> You are always quite careful to avoid a clear and concise answer to the questions about the current negotiating position of the Palestinians.  The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) is quite clear on the issue of borders and their position.
> 
> Do you agree with the PLO-NAD that:
> 
> 
> Key Facts
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> Our Position
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
> Borders:
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?"_
> 
> 
> 
> UNGA Resolution 2649
> 
> 
> Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*
> 
> Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination *to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance*, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> This covers both the right to resist by any means and the right to seek material assistance (including armament).
> 
> So go back and conjure up some new BS that you can fling around.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November *1970*) lost applicability when, in *November 1988*, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.



			
				PLO Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
> 
> *Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination*, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988



Second, General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) gave the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries; not to an enemy population engaged in hostile aggression.  Palestine was not then, is not now and never been a "colonial asset" to any Allied Power.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied as the result of a conflict between Egypt and Jordan (the Palestinians in the West Bank being Jordanians).

Since the time of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November *1970*), the General Assembly omitted using reference to the Resolution 2649, as exemplified by COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Fifty-first session
1995/4 Situation in occupied Palestine (specifically).

I repeat, yet again, there is no international law that gives the Palestinians the right to use Jihad, Fedayeen armed struggle, or any other hostile or violent means, to achieve their political ends.

While you did site General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV), you have yet to cite an authority (international law, treaty, or convention) that permits such action.  The Rome Statutes, the Geneva Convention, and the Declaration of Principles all argue against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State; including Israel or the United States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name a peaceful means that would work.
> 
> The Palestinians suggest enforcing international law.
> 
> What would you suggest?
Click to expand...





 Complying with Res 242 and 338 that says they have to sit down and talk peace as well as mutually agreed borders. Just as it says above, and not as you advocate continual terrorism and attacks on foreign nations.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Rocco bases his posts on false premise.
> 
> When I asked Rocco a question where the answer would prove me right and pushed him for a answer several times, he ducked and weaved and blew smoke but never answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he just didn't give you the answer you wanted, he gave you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, what was his answer?
Click to expand...





 As I said THE FACTS, something that is totally alien to you.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* Good Faith - Peace Talk - Negotiations
> 
> The very thing the Palestinians are trying to weasel out of.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a peaceful means that would work.
> 
> The Palestinians suggest enforcing international law.
> 
> What would you suggest?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now who is evading the question?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.
Click to expand...




 They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:
			
		

> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.



What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what was his answer?
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, Tinmore, his answer was: Palestinians need to act like educated adults rather than permanently aroused hornets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course those who bat the hornets nest are not responsible for anything.
Click to expand...





 Tell that to the ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM in Palestine.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't start it. Others brought you up. It seems that you are considered the intellectual elite of posters on this board. I agree. I appreciate your interaction. Of course that does not mean that I agree with you.
> 
> Most people just post drivel and clutter. They just throw stones and call names.
Click to expand...


Which posters are you talking about?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
Click to expand...





 Because half the land was already declared by Israel who have the same rights as Palestine to free determination and secure borders. There was no treaty extant that gave all of Palestine to the Palestinians


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
Click to expand...


In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This General Assembly Resolution is neither "international law" (non-binding) or applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yeah, we're funny like that.
> 
> If I answer in a short, abbreviated fashion, you want "links" and cherry pick the sound bites.  If I anticipate your counter-point, you say it is "verbose" and full of "smoke;" but don't challenge the content; merely the manner of presentation.
> 
> *(BACKGROUND & QUESTION)*
> 
> So, your counterpoint is that Palestinian Resistance is not a threat to regional security and peace.
> 
> So, if this is true, then why should any other country care about the dispute if it _(as you claim)_ is harmless _(not a threat)_ to them?
> 
> You are always quite nebulas as to the authority the Palestinians claim to conduct violent and hostile resistance.
> 
> Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?
> Where is the exemption cited?
> *&#8730;*  "Considering it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter" (A/RES/25/2625).​
> You are always quite careful to avoid a clear and concise answer to the questions about the current negotiating position of the Palestinians.  The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) is quite clear on the issue of borders and their position.
> 
> Do you agree with the PLO-NAD that:
> 
> 
> Key Facts
> The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
> A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
> The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> Our Position
> A number of border-related issues will need to be addressed during final status talks to achieve an end in conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, including:
> Borders:
> Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?"_
> 
> 
> 
> UNGA Resolution 2649
> 
> 
> Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*
> 
> Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination *to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance*, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> This covers both the right to resist by any means and the right to seek material assistance (including armament).
> 
> So go back and conjure up some new BS that you can fling around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November *1970*) lost applicability when, in *November 1988*, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
> 
> *Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination*, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second, General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) gave the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries; not to an enemy population engaged in hostile aggression.  Palestine was not then, is not now and never been a "colonial asset" to any Allied Power.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied as the result of a conflict between Egypt and Jordan (the Palestinians in the West Bank being Jordanians).
> 
> Since the time of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November *1970*), the General Assembly omitted using reference to the Resolution 2649, as exemplified by COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Fifty-first session
> 1995/4 Situation in occupied Palestine (specifically).
> 
> I repeat, yet again, there is no international law that gives the Palestinians the right to use Jihad, Fedayeen armed struggle, or any other hostile or violent means, to achieve their political ends.
> 
> While you did site General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV), you have yet to cite an authority (international law, treaty, or convention) that permits such action.  The Rome Statutes, the Geneva Convention, and the Declaration of Principles all argue against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State; including Israel or the United States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You failed to read the resolution.  It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:

"Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial *and alien* domination"

Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*"

Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because half the land was already declared by Israel* who have the same rights as Palestine to free determination and secure borders. There was no treaty extant that gave all of Palestine to the Palestinians
Click to expand...


No it wasn't you need to study your history.

Palestine was already Palestinian land according to post war treaties.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* Good Faith - Peace Talk - Negotiations
> 
> The very thing the Palestinians are trying to weasel out of.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now who is evading the question?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.
Click to expand...


Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that, while I was out with my kids, that you had a couple issues with my posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't start it. Others brought you up. It seems that you are considered the intellectual elite of posters on this board. I agree. I appreciate your interaction. Of course that does not mean that I agree with you.
> 
> Most people just post drivel and clutter. They just throw stones and call names.
Click to expand...

Tinmore, your bullheadedness is going to make you argue with the devil but he's going to drag you off anyways.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Territorial integrity is a right*. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
Click to expand...


So when are you giving your land back to the indians?


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Territorial integrity is a right*. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when are you giving your land back to the indians?
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days.  The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.  

The law is different today.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because half the land was already declared by Israel* who have the same rights as Palestine to free determination and secure borders. There was no treaty extant that gave all of Palestine to the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't you need to study your history.
> 
> Palestine was already Palestinian land according to post war treaties.
Click to expand...


No, YOU need to study your history.
The land had ALREADY BEEN DECLARED INDEPENDENT BY ISRAEL.
Not up for debate.

And if it was already Palestinian land, why did they need to declare independence in 1988??
Also, there is no post war treaty that said Palestine was Palestinian land. Stop lying.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
Click to expand...


Palestine has no internationally recognized borders.
You have yet to show a CURRENT map of Palestine that clearly shows and marks those borders. All you have is the partition plan map.


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Territorial integrity is a right*. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when are you giving your land back to the indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days.  The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.
> 
> The law is different today.
Click to expand...


So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when are you giving your land back to the indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days.  The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.
> 
> The law is different today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.
Click to expand...


Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.

Why should I kiss a carpet?  And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days.  The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.
> 
> The law is different today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.
> 
> Why should I kiss a carpet?  And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?
Click to expand...

I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're a hypocrite. Got it. Now go kiss a carpet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.
> 
> Why should I kiss a carpet?  And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.
Click to expand...


I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.

And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
Click to expand...


What land did Israel declare?

Link?


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
Click to expand...

Impediments to the validity of the 1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence or Statehood?

1. Four (4) months later than the May 1948 Jewish one, so, the Sep 1948 Arab Declaration is only un-contested in connection with land parcels still controlled by the Arabs as of the Sep 1948 Declaration date (only pertains, un-contested, to a portion of Old Palestine, not all, despite their belated and unrealistic claims, embedded in that joke of a document).

2. It never governed; the All-Palestine Government was a political figurehead and Egyptian mouthpiece; sitting first in Gaza, then fleeing to Cairo as the Israelis advanced on Gaza; and their Arab patron-neighbor states dissolved it after 10-11 years; recognizing its uselessness. A government that cannot govern, even in exile, is no government at all.

3. It was never recognized, beyond the domain of the Arab League, and then, only imperfectly.

4. A declaration by a non-existent or non-functioning Government is no declaration at all.

...and a host of other things, I'm sure; but that's a good down-payment on answering the question.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.

Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.

They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.

The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.

Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.

To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.

It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.

Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.

Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.

They won't be trying it again anytime soon.

Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.

As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.

Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.
> 
> Why should I kiss a carpet?  And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.
> 
> And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.
Click to expand...

BFD. I have been calling Islam a cancer for over 50 years and the whole world knows it. It's just that people and countries are scared shitless of offending the OPEC countries but the worm is beginning to turn.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.
> 
> Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.
> 
> They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.
> 
> The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.
> 
> Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.
> 
> To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.
> 
> It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.
> 
> Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.
> 
> Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.
> 
> Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.
> 
> Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.
> 
> As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.
Click to expand...


Holy smokescreen, Batman!

You have nothing.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


The land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.

I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.
> 
> Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.
> 
> They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.
> 
> The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.
> 
> Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.
> 
> To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.
> 
> It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.
> 
> Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.
> 
> Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.
> 
> Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.
> 
> Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.
> 
> As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
Click to expand...


As oppose to what you have; Lies and Palestinian propaganda.


----------



## Hossfly

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land allotted to them by the partition plan.
> 
> Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.
> 
> I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.
Click to expand...

The Tinmore Coat of Arms probably reads "E Pluribus Anus".


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.
> 
> Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.
> 
> They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.
> 
> The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.
> 
> Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.
> 
> To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.
> 
> It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.
> 
> Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.
> 
> Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.
> 
> Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.
> 
> Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.
> 
> As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.




















































========================================

What have _you_ got, Tinny?

As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.

And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.

Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.
> 
> Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.
> 
> They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.
> 
> The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.
> 
> Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.
> 
> To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.
> 
> It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.
> 
> Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.
> 
> Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.
> 
> Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.
> 
> Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.
> 
> As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> What have _you_ got, Tinny?
> 
> As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.
> 
> And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.
> 
> Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.
Click to expand...


It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> What have _you_ got, Tinny?
> 
> As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.
> 
> And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.
> 
> Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
Click to expand...

Like you did with the indians?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The land allotted to them by the partition plan.*
> 
> Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.
> 
> I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.
Click to expand...


Where did Israel claim that land?

Link?


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli declaration or claim was implicit.
> 
> Tantamount to being whatever-the-hell land that they controlled.
> 
> They sustain(ed) that claim through force of arms.
> 
> The claim is real because they can enforce their will in making it real.
> 
> Nothing more is required, at this great distance in time.
> 
> To overturn that claim, you must resort to force of arms, in such a manner as to overcome the Israeli shield.
> 
> It's been tried before... repeatedly... by the yahoos surrounding them... and those yahoos have failed miserably... repeatedly.
> 
> Donor exhaustion has long-since set in.
> 
> Those same yahoos have poured enough blood and treasure into Old Palestine to last them a few generations.
> 
> Those same yahoos won't be trying it again anytime soon.
> 
> Especially in light of just how badly fragmented and in what disarray we find Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, et al.
> 
> As a matter of fact, some of them (Egypt, Jordan) now collaborate with Israel, to monitor, fence-off and blockade the mad-dog Palestinians.
> 
> Sux to be the Pals, I'm sure, but, they've shot themselves in the foot so often, and brought terror to innocents outside their borders so often, that it's difficult to care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> What have _you_ got, Tinny?
> 
> As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.
> 
> And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.
> 
> Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.
Click to expand...


That's what the South Africans said. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4FB09CwiQY]SADF 1980's - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The land allotted to them by the partition plan.*
> 
> Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.
> 
> I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did Israel claim that land?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_



montelatici said:


> You failed to read the resolution.  It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:
> 
> "Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial *and alien* domination"
> 
> Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*"
> 
> Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.


*(GENERAL DISAGREEMENT)*

I generally disagree that the Palestinians have any right to use "any means at their disposal" under General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970).  It violates the basic Declaration of Principles and the basic objectives of the UN Charter.

*(THE CONSEQUENCES)*

If you invoke Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter, _(even if we overlook the questionable applicability and standing)_ then you are essentially stating that the dispute is a "war" over violation of international lines of demarcation _(1949 Armistice Lines)_ established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect.

*(Questionable Applicability and Standing)* 


Today's State of Palestine was not then and is not now a Member of the United Nations.  In 1967, the West Bank was not Palestinian Territory, but sovereign territory of Jordan.  The State of Jordan was invaded and not Palestinian Territory.

The occupation of today's West Bank (Jordan) was settled via the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, when (pursuant to Article 3) the boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), became the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.  It should be remembered that on 31 July 1988, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made the decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank was made.

Impact of the Timeline:
June 1967:  
Israel, after an artillery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line; and after Jordan launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem; Israel advances in defense to counter Jordanian offensive military action.  West Bank is occupied Jordanian territory (oJt) by Israel.


July 1988:
King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.


November 1988:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
October 1994:

Israel-Jordan Treaty:  Secure and recognized international boundary set between Israel and Jordan.





It would seem that Israel was NOT established inside Palestine, but the the State of Palestine was established inside the oJt, later the Israeli border internationally recognized by both Jordan and Israel through treaty.

Thus, if there is a "war" (a Chapter VII event under the Charter), it is a quasi-Civil War between the State of Israel and the people of the unincorporated West Bank _(people of the former oJt)_ ceded to Israel by Jordan.  The consequence being that it is a domestic issue; outside international law.  Clearly the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan have the boundary down the Jordan River and through the center of the Dead Sea.



			
				Article 3 - International Boundary - Paragraph 5 said:
			
		

> It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.



One side of the boundary is Israel and the other side Jordan.  Is that how you read it?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The land allotted to them by the partition plan.*
> 
> Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.
> 
> I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Israel claim that land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.
Click to expand...


Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.

The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.








That's the ticket, Tinny... you go with that... I'm sure that'll serve you in good stead... as it has, for the past 66 years...


----------



## MrMax

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Israel claim that land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
Click to expand...


Armistice lines?  They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> "...That's what the South Africans said.


Wonderful... delightful... I'm sure you're right...

Now, all you need to do, is make the South Africa scenario materialize, in connection with Israel, and you're all set.

Rotsa ruck...


----------



## montelatici

MrMax said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Armistice lines?  They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.
Click to expand...


Which Arab states surrounding Israel are still at war with Israel?  Maybe Syria.


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armistice lines?  They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Arab states surrounding Israel are still at war with Israel?  Maybe Syria.
Click to expand...


No, please try again.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians resist the occupation but they threaten nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telling yourself this over and over doesn't make it so.
> 
> Explain how threatening to attack Israeli Embassies is 'resisting the occupation' ( hahahahahaa sorry I couldn't say that without laughing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are quite the simpleton then.  Any people, resisting occupation attack the interests of the occupier.  Do you think that Chechnya supporters attacking the Russian Embassy in Beirut was not resisting Russian occupation, for example?  You people are so hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Kharroub was palestinian.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> This General Assembly Resolution is neither "international law" (non-binding) or applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Where (exactly) is this authority to conduct hostile and violent resistance?"_
> 
> 
> 
> UNGA Resolution 2649
> 
> 
> Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*
> 
> Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination *to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance*, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
> 
> This covers both the right to resist by any means and the right to seek material assistance (including armament).
> 
> So go back and conjure up some new BS that you can fling around.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November *1970*) lost applicability when, in *November 1988*, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Declaration of Independence said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
> 
> *Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination*, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ A/43/827  S/20278  18 November 1988
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second, General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) gave the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries; not to an enemy population engaged in hostile aggression.  Palestine was not then, is not now and never been a "colonial asset" to any Allied Power.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied as the result of a conflict between Egypt and Jordan (the Palestinians in the West Bank being Jordanians).
> 
> Since the time of the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November *1970*), the General Assembly omitted using reference to the Resolution 2649, as exemplified by COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Fifty-first session
> 1995/4 Situation in occupied Palestine (specifically).
> 
> I repeat, yet again, there is no international law that gives the Palestinians the right to use Jihad, Fedayeen armed struggle, or any other hostile or violent means, to achieve their political ends.
> 
> While you did site General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV), you have yet to cite an authority (international law, treaty, or convention) that permits such action.  The Rome Statutes, the Geneva Convention, and the Declaration of Principles all argue against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State; including Israel or the United States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to read the resolution.  It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:
> 
> "Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial *and alien* domination"
> 
> Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*"
> 
> Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.
Click to expand...





 You really need to learn English comprehension as the P.A. declared while under occupation. If you want it the way you say them every western nation can implement the same rule and wipe out the muslims who are colonising the west and enforcing their alien domination. Always remember what you declare as valid for one set of people has to be valid for every set of people.


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders...


The Israelis got tired of waiting for the Arabs to come to terms, so they finalized those borders unilaterally, and sustained their opinion in the matter.

You know what to do, it you disagree with that position; take it back.

Otherwise, it's time to face Reality and move on.

Or, should I say, it was time to do that, 50-60 years ago.

After 1967, that window of opportunity closed forevermore.

It's what comes from procrastinating, in facing-up to Reality.

You snooze, you lose.

No do-overs.

Too late now.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because half the land was already declared by Israel* who have the same rights as Palestine to free determination and secure borders. There was no treaty extant that gave all of Palestine to the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't you need to study your history.
> 
> Palestine was already Palestinian land according to post war treaties.
Click to expand...





 Was it or was it so the Hashemites could take Syria and trans Jordan which are both part of the Palestine you keep referring to. The one that had International Borders and which granted its occupants citizenship of the nation it was to become.

 Here is the partial map of Palestine from 1920


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians need to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> I see a basic flaw in that notion. Of course that is the basics of the forever failed peace process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
Click to expand...





 A pity then that Syria and Jordan have already done that under the Mandate and stole the majority of Palestine for themselves.  See this map for details


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to read the resolution.  It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:
> 
> "Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial *and alien* domination"
> 
> Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*"
> 
> Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.
> 
> 
> 
> *(GENERAL DISAGREEMENT)*
> 
> I generally disagree that the Palestinians have any right to use "any means at their disposal" under General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970).  It violates the basic Declaration of Principles and the basic objectives of the UN Charter.
> 
> *(THE CONSEQUENCES)*
> 
> If you invoke Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter, _(even if we overlook the questionable applicability and standing)_ then you are essentially stating that the dispute is a "war" over violation of international lines of demarcation _(1949 Armistice Lines)_ established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> *(Questionable Applicability and Standing)*
> 
> 
> Today's State of Palestine was not then and is not now a Member of the United Nations.  In 1967, the West Bank was not Palestinian Territory, but sovereign territory of Jordan.  The State of Jordan was invaded and not Palestinian Territory.
> 
> The occupation of today's West Bank (Jordan) was settled via the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, when (pursuant to Article 3) the boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), became the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.  It should be remembered that on 31 July 1988, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made the decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank was made.
> 
> Impact of the Timeline:
> June 1967:
> Israel, after an artillery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line; and after Jordan launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem; Israel advances in defense to counter Jordanian offensive military action.  West Bank is occupied Jordanian territory (oJt) by Israel.
> 
> 
> July 1988:
> King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
> 
> 
> November 1988:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> October 1994:
> 
> Israel-Jordan Treaty:  Secure and recognized international boundary set between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that Israel was NOT established inside Palestine, but the the State of Palestine was established inside the oJt, later the Israeli border internationally recognized by both Jordan and Israel through treaty.
> 
> Thus, if there is a "war" (a Chapter VII event under the Charter), it is a quasi-Civil War between the State of Israel and the people of the unincorporated West Bank _(people of the former oJt)_ ceded to Israel by Jordan.  The consequence being that it is a domestic issue; outside international law.  Clearly the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan have the boundary down the Jordan River and through the center of the Dead Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3 - International Boundary - Paragraph 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side of the boundary is Israel and the other side Jordan.  Is that how you read it?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


A couple of problems with your post.

1) The West Bank was not part of Jordan. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank and pretended that it had but the world was not with them on that.

2) The 1949 UN armistice agreement (that Israel signed) specifically called the land west of Jordan (the Negev) Palestine. When did Israel acquire that land?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Territorial integrity is a right*. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when are you giving your land back to the indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the Indians, genocide and ethnic cleansing was not a crime in International law in those days.  The Europeans did an excellent job in eliminating them as a demographic threat.
> 
> The law is different today.
Click to expand...




 It does not seem to deter the Palestinians when they ethnically cleanse and carry out genocides on the Christians does it


----------



## Phoenall

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already have their rights they just need to negotiate a peace and borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Territorial integrity is a right. Palestine's international borders should be non negotiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine has no internationally recognized borders.
> You have yet to show a CURRENT map of Palestine that clearly shows and marks those borders. All you have is the partition plan map.
Click to expand...




 The only map that does show palestines borders is this one from 1920







 Note it includes Jordan


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a hypocrite, just posting fact, which is what I always do and is something those of your ilk should do.
> 
> Why should I kiss a carpet?  And, do you think that insulting the practices of a particular religion somehow enhances your simpleton image?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.
> 
> And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.
Click to expand...





 Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...





 here you go

Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

 On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.

*This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked.* It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State.


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.
> 
> And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BFD. I have been calling Islam a cancer for over 50 years and the whole world knows it. It's just that people and countries are scared shitless of offending the OPEC countries but the worm is beginning to turn.
Click to expand...

Gutsy pronouncement.

In my humble and amateur-caliber opinion... you are correct... all disingenuous and self-serving Godwin-esque brickbats to the contrary notwithstanding.

Militant Islam, at any rate, is a cancer on the face of the Earth.

Islam is not merely a religious belief-system.

It is a social and legal and political and cultural conquest and control mechanism, embedded within the framework of a superficial and symbolic spiritual-religious belief system; hiding behind its religious facade, to attempt to shield it from the same treatment accorded to other mechanisms associated with conquest and control.

It is medieval and backwards and primitive in nature, largely intolerant of and hostile to other religious and cultural systems despite its protestations and inconsistent and hypocritical charter-writings to the contrary, spawned from the blood-soaked hands of its pedophile founder, and it drags along with it, its primary ball and chain, a collection of canon law that remains operative in civic and political and judicial life in the realms in which it holds sway; grounded in its bloodthirsty founding and conquests.

It is a poison pill and alien to Western society and history and culture and traditions and mores and spirituality and political systems and governance and vitality; passive where outnumbered, obnoxiously aggressive and demanding when it achieves a majority; not to be trusted under any circumstances; carefully tolerated in our own domains, but watched closely for the encroachments which it consistently and invariably attempts.

If it was purely a religious system, I could bring myself to be more welcoming, but it's not; far from it. It is dangerous.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> What have _you_ got, Tinny?
> 
> As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.
> 
> And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.
> 
> Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
Click to expand...





 But not by treaty which is how Israel will win in the end as the HoAP refuse to meet in peace talks.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The land allotted to them by the partition plan.*
> 
> Stop asking questions you know the answer too and stop playing stupid.
> 
> I've never encountered someone like you who seems to be wrong about every claim. You truly are one of a kind Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did Israel claim that land?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...





 Here

Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here you go
> 
> Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.
> 
> *This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked.* It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State.
Click to expand...


When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?

Link?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Israel claim that land?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
Click to expand...





 Try this instead which is the original demarcation until 1967 when Un resolution 242 came into being


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armistice lines?  They are still at war. Like I've said before, if the arabs want to surrender, then lines can be set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Arab states surrounding Israel are still at war with Israel?  Maybe Syria.
Click to expand...





 Iran, Iraq, Palestine for starters


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to read the resolution.  It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:
> 
> "Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial *and alien* domination"
> 
> Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*"
> 
> Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.
> 
> 
> 
> *(GENERAL DISAGREEMENT)*
> 
> I generally disagree that the Palestinians have any right to use "any means at their disposal" under General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970).  It violates the basic Declaration of Principles and the basic objectives of the UN Charter.
> 
> *(THE CONSEQUENCES)*
> 
> If you invoke Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter, _(even if we overlook the questionable applicability and standing)_ then you are essentially stating that the dispute is a "war" over violation of international lines of demarcation _(1949 Armistice Lines)_ established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> *(Questionable Applicability and Standing)*
> 
> 
> Today's State of Palestine was not then and is not now a Member of the United Nations.  In 1967, the West Bank was not Palestinian Territory, but sovereign territory of Jordan.  The State of Jordan was invaded and not Palestinian Territory.
> 
> The occupation of today's West Bank (Jordan) was settled via the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, when (pursuant to Article 3) the boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), became the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.  It should be remembered that on 31 July 1988, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made the decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank was made.
> 
> Impact of the Timeline:
> June 1967:
> Israel, after an artillery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line; and after Jordan launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem; Israel advances in defense to counter Jordanian offensive military action.  West Bank is occupied Jordanian territory (oJt) by Israel.
> 
> 
> July 1988:
> King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
> 
> 
> November 1988:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> October 1994:
> 
> Israel-Jordan Treaty:  Secure and recognized international boundary set between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that Israel was NOT established inside Palestine, but the the State of Palestine was established inside the oJt, later the Israeli border internationally recognized by both Jordan and Israel through treaty.
> 
> Thus, if there is a "war" (a Chapter VII event under the Charter), it is a quasi-Civil War between the State of Israel and the people of the unincorporated West Bank _(people of the former oJt)_ ceded to Israel by Jordan.  The consequence being that it is a domestic issue; outside international law.  Clearly the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan have the boundary down the Jordan River and through the center of the Dead Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3 - International Boundary - Paragraph 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side of the boundary is Israel and the other side Jordan.  Is that how you read it?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your post.
> 
> 1) The West Bank was not part of Jordan. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank and pretended that it had but the world was not with them on that.
> 
> 2) The 1949 UN armistice agreement (that Israel signed) specifically called the land west of Jordan (the Negev) Palestine. When did Israel acquire that land?
Click to expand...

Answer:
2.  When Moses got his marching orders from Yahweh.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to read the resolution.  It makes no difference if Palestine "declared" independence when the population is occupied and under alien domination, the resolution is clear that:
> 
> "Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial *and alien* domination"
> 
> Until the domination ends, the non-Jews are "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right *by any means at their disposal;*"
> 
> Besides, Article 51 of the UN Charter covers the non-Jew's right to self defense individually or collectively.
> 
> 
> 
> *(GENERAL DISAGREEMENT)*
> 
> I generally disagree that the Palestinians have any right to use "any means at their disposal" under General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970).  It violates the basic Declaration of Principles and the basic objectives of the UN Charter.
> 
> *(THE CONSEQUENCES)*
> 
> If you invoke Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter, _(even if we overlook the questionable applicability and standing)_ then you are essentially stating that the dispute is a "war" over violation of international lines of demarcation _(1949 Armistice Lines)_ established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> *(Questionable Applicability and Standing)*
> 
> 
> Today's State of Palestine was not then and is not now a Member of the United Nations.  In 1967, the West Bank was not Palestinian Territory, but sovereign territory of Jordan.  The State of Jordan was invaded and not Palestinian Territory.
> 
> The occupation of today's West Bank (Jordan) was settled via the Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, when (pursuant to Article 3) the boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), became the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.  It should be remembered that on 31 July 1988, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made the decision to sever legal and administrative ties with the West Bank was made.
> 
> Impact of the Timeline:
> June 1967:
> Israel, after an artillery bombardment of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities along the Green Line; and after Jordan launched an infantry invasion of Jewish Jerusalem; Israel advances in defense to counter Jordanian offensive military action.  West Bank is occupied Jordanian territory (oJt) by Israel.
> 
> 
> July 1988:
> King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.
> 
> 
> November 1988:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> October 1994:
> 
> Israel-Jordan Treaty:  Secure and recognized international boundary set between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that Israel was NOT established inside Palestine, but the the State of Palestine was established inside the oJt, later the Israeli border internationally recognized by both Jordan and Israel through treaty.
> 
> Thus, if there is a "war" (a Chapter VII event under the Charter), it is a quasi-Civil War between the State of Israel and the people of the unincorporated West Bank _(people of the former oJt)_ ceded to Israel by Jordan.  The consequence being that it is a domestic issue; outside international law.  Clearly the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan have the boundary down the Jordan River and through the center of the Dead Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3 - International Boundary - Paragraph 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side of the boundary is Israel and the other side Jordan.  Is that how you read it?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your post.
> 
> 1) The West Bank was not part of Jordan. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank and pretended that it had but the world was not with them on that.
> 
> 2) The 1949 UN armistice agreement (that Israel signed) specifically called the land west of Jordan (the Negev) Palestine. When did Israel acquire that land?
Click to expand...





 Couple of problems with your reply

 1) the west banks occupants declared to become part of Jordan, making it a show of free determination on their part. It did not need International approval as it was the occupants decision. 

 2) No it didn't as this map shows






Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949:


    Arab territory until 1967;

      Israel


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here you go
> 
> Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.
> 
> *This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked.* It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything??


----------



## Kondor3

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here you go
> 
> Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.
> 
> *This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked.* It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

_Implicit_ in the _Israeli Declaration of Statehood_, referencing the UN Resolution of November 29, 1947, I would think, yes?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here you go
> 
> Declaration of Israel's Independence, 1948 . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.
> 
> *This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their Independent State may not be revoked.* It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own Sovereign State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...




 The one posted above tells you may 13th 1948


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he's insulting a religion. Insulting a cancer isn't bad IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.
> 
> And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
Click to expand...


i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.

There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions.  It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous.  But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.

Some people find Hinduism evil:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?



LINK

V/R
R


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.
> 
> And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions.  It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous.  But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.
> 
> Some people find Hinduism evil:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058
Click to expand...

It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> V/R
> R
Click to expand...


Your link does not mention borders.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions.  It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous.  But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.
> 
> Some people find Hinduism evil:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.
Click to expand...


I don't call any religion evil or cancerous.  I am not a racist.


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> V/R
> R
Click to expand...

Tinmore would tell you that all the signers were foreigners thus it is invalid.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions.  It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous.  But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.
> 
> Some people find Hinduism evil:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't call any religion evil or cancerous.  I am not a racist.
Click to expand...

Me neither. I agree with you 100%. I hold no ill will toward any legitimate religion. I have a link about what Islam is and I'll post it another time. It sure as hell isn't any religion.


----------



## Sally

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions.  It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous.  But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.
> 
> Some people find Hinduism evil:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.
Click to expand...


And no one has said that all Muslims are evil.  There are Muslims themselves who are disgusted with what their fellow Muslims are doing.  However, instead of Defeat67 spending his waking hours on different forums, what he should do, since he is in Europe, is to visit the different Muslim communities there and try to convince the young people that they should assimilate.  Here in America people can over in the migrations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in huge numbers from Europe.  Many of them kept the old customs, but their children became assimilated into the American culture.  The children might have learned the language of their parents and certainly ate the  European food their parents made, but when they went out to play or attended school, they were all Americans like the other children.  It seems that in many parts of Europe the Muslim youth  don't want to assimilate.

How Modernity 'Radicalizes' Western Muslims :: Middle East Forum


----------



## montelatici

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> V/R
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link does not mention borders.
Click to expand...


It refers you to the Resolution (Nov. 29, 1947) that defines the borders:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/28/learning/Nov29LN/Nov29LN-articleInline.jpg


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
Click to expand...


Palestinians did not declare a state in 1948.  1988 was the foundations for the establishment of Palestinian state, not the same as a declaring independence, nor in 1994, nor 2000.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Not really problems.



P F Tinmore said:


> A couple of problems with your post.
> 
> 1) The West Bank was not part of Jordan. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank and pretended that it had but the world was not with them on that.
> 
> 2) The 1949 UN armistice agreement (that Israel signed) specifically called the land west of Jordan (the Negev) Palestine. When did Israel acquire that land?


*(COMMENT)*

Problem 1:

No nation intervened with the original occupation of the West Bank, by Jordan.  
And no nation intervened when Jordan announce annexation.   
And no nation refused to acknowledge Jordanian documentation of the West Bank population.
And no nation intervened in the establishment of Government Offices in the West Bank.

I challenge your view that the "world was not with them on that."  They may have said this or that, but in the final analysis, the world did nothing to oppose or retard it.

If it looks like a piece of Jordan, acts like a piece of Jordan, has representation in Parliament like a piece of Jordan, uses Passports like Jordan, pays taxes like Jordan .... I venture to say, it is Jordan.

If it is covered in the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty, then it was once Jordan, incorporated or not.  Not one nation balked at the Treaty; not even the Palestinians.  ​
Problem 2:

In the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the language used to describe the Territory was still derivative of the Mandate days.  In the case of the term "Palestine" --- is was the practical description for the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.

That was part of the original allotment under Part II of GA/Res/181(II).  I know you don't recognize the 1947 Resolution, but the PLO did (sole representative of the Palestinian people).​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

_et al,_

Well, there is an argument to be made here.



aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2649 (XXV) (30 November 1970) lost applicability when, in November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence; realizing the right of self-determination for the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestinians did not declare a state in 1948.  1988 was the foundations for the establishment of Palestinian state, not the same as a declaring independence, nor in 1994, nor 2000.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The All Palestine Government attempted to Declare Independence (28 September 1948) over all the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.

It was ignored.  

v/r
R


----------



## Sweet_Caroline

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't Hindism that spreads terror around the world under the guise of "religion", but as an Islamist you don't see or acknowledge the cancerous spread.. Understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't call any religion evil or cancerous.  I am not a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me neither. I agree with you 100%. I hold no ill will toward any legitimate religion. I have a link about what Islam is and I'll post it another time. It sure as hell isn't any religion.
Click to expand...


I have this link.  Makes you go right off Islam being the "religion of peace" doesn't it.  

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, they tried to declare independence on land ALREADY DECLARED INDEPENDENT by Israel.
> Which is why they had to do it again in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What land did Israel declare?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance, 5708-1948 was passed during the second truce.  Jordan and Egypt controlled what was left of the former mandate.  Palestinians cannot declare a state on land they have no possession of.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> What have _you_ got, Tinny?
> 
> As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.
> 
> And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.
> 
> Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
Click to expand...


Yet that is precisely what the arabs/palestinians have been trying to do since '48 with every attack on Israel.  Israel's gain of land was an effect of them being attacked.  Threat of force and violence had already begun in'47 by the arab.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Tinny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========================================
> 
> What have _you_ got, Tinny?
> 
> As I've said... the Israeli land-claim was whatever land they controlled.
> 
> And they had (and have, and will have) the power to sustain that claim.
> 
> Nothing more is needed, in the Real World.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet that is precisely what the arabs/palestinians have been trying to do since '48 with every attack on Israel.  Israel's gain of land was an effect of them being attacked.  Threat of force and violence had already begun in'47 by the arab.
Click to expand...


I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.

To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America. 

It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.

It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.

Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance.  The same could be said about the Palestinians.  But, that is something that runs counter to human nature.  Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians.  What would you do?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so to you Islam is not a religion, but a cancer.  The Nazi in you comes to the surface easily.  You would be  banned on any other board for the disgusting racist comments you make except maybe on Stormfront.  Congratulations.
> 
> And before you ask, the UN Convention includes cultural (religious) bias as racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling islam a cancer is being nice as it acts just like a cancer and spreads invasively, destroying as it creeps across the land. This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i This is why so many people in different nations see islam as evil and cancerous.
> 
> There are as many people in different countries that have prejudices against all kinds of religions.  It is the brainwashed and racists such as yourself that single out one particular religion and call it evil and cancerous.  But keep up your racist posts, it is telling.
> 
> Some people find Hinduism evil:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150150921590058
Click to expand...





 Maybe they do but the hatred for islam crosses all borders, all classes, all races, all religions and all cultures


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Israel claim the proposed borders of resolution 181 as their own?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> V/R
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link does not mention borders.
Click to expand...





It does not need to as the UN realised that the borders allocated were not viable and put Israel at a disadvantage when it came to defence. This is why all Un resolutions in regards to Israel contain the line "mutually agreed borders"


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> V/R
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link does not mention borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It refers you to the Resolution (Nov. 29, 1947) that defines the borders:
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/28/learning/Nov29LN/Nov29LN-articleInline.jpg
Click to expand...





 Get it right those were the proposed borders that fell apart when the arab armies invaded. Since then the UN has stipulated "mutually agreed defensible borders"


----------



## aris2chat

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a map, ever heard of that? Then look it up. It's the part called Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try this instead which is the original demarcation until 1967 when Un resolution 242 came into being
Click to expand...


The partition plan was rejected by the arabs.  They refused to recognize such borders.

Per the '48 Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance, land taken in the defense of it's state became part of the state.

If Israel is willing to hand over land for the creation of a palestinian state, that will come only through negotiations, not a demand by palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet that is precisely what the arabs/palestinians have been trying to do since '48 with every attack on Israel.  Israel's gain of land was an effect of them being attacked.  Threat of force and violence had already begun in'47 by the arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.
> 
> To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.
> 
> It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.
> 
> It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.
> 
> Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance.  The same could be said about the Palestinians.  But, that is something that runs counter to human nature.  Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians.  What would you do?
Click to expand...





 One extremely large difference is that the Palestinians rulers the Ottomans invited the Jews to come and settle Palestine because the arab muslims did not have the heart to work hard. Then the next rulers did the same thing with the full agreement of the arab leaders to invite Jews from all around the world to migrate and live in their new NATIONAL HOME.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  _et al,_

In some respects, we are in part, still applying 18th Century logic.  But again, there is a mix of a much more advanced concept trying to be applied.



montelatici said:


> I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.
> 
> To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.
> 
> It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.
> 
> It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.
> 
> Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance.  The same could be said about the Palestinians.  But, that is something that runs counter to human nature.  Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians.  What would you do?


*(COMMENT)*

Nice analogy; thoughtful and insightful.

There is a significant difference in the two sets of conditions (North American Indian _'vs'_ Palestinian).  In the case of the New World, whether we talk about the cultures and tribes that were made extinct _(ex. Beothuk Tribes, Karankawa Tribes, Mandans Tribes, Chisca Tribes, Hachaath Tribes)_ or other tribes that were made near extinct _(ex. Algonquian, Cherokee, Cheyennes, Iroquois, Lakotas, Pima, Seminole, Sioux, and Tuscarora)_.  In contrast, the Arab was never in danger of extinction; even the Arab Palestinian grows in numbers (not diminishing).

Secondly, while the 18th Century treatment of the North American Indian was, to be sure, a black mark in the history of the US, today, whether you look _Eskimo_ in the far North, the Pacific Islands _(Samoans and Polynesians)_, or the tribes of the Continental US, these indigenous cultures are revered and granted special protections culturally, territorially, and commercially.  This is a by-product of social growth within the species and recognition for the special needs over time.   

I spoke-out before, for the special needs of the Jewish People.  A similar theory and concept applies.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> "..._Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?_"


Fight like hell.

Rather than run.

Until I won.

Or until I lost.

And, if I lost...

I would make-nice with my old enemies and cut the best deal that I could, for myself, my family, and my people, and either (1) resume a peaceful life or (2) leave, if I could not rid myself of old animosities sufficiently to have that peaceful life where I was.

The Palestinians should have made such a decision in 1949.

Or 1967 at the very latest.

Palestinian intransigence and inability to face reality are the sticking points, and have been, for decades.


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Well, there is an argument to be made here.
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What circumstances were different that makes the 1988 declaration valid but not the 1948 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians did not declare a state in 1948.  1988 was the foundations for the establishment of Palestinian state, not the same as a declaring independence, nor in 1994, nor 2000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The All Palestine Government attempted to Declare Independence (28 September 1948) over all the territory under the former Mandate of Palestine.
> 
> It was ignored.
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


four months after the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance.  How they thought they could attempt to make any claim to land they controlled no part is amazing.  Jordan and Egypt certainly never tried to or permit the palestinians to establish a state.
any attempt is empty without recognizing Israel as a jewish state.


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?_"
> 
> 
> 
> Fight like hell.
> 
> Rather than run.
> 
> Until I won.
> 
> Or until I lost.
> 
> And, if I lost...
> 
> I would make-nice with my old enemies and cut the best deal that I could, for myself, my family, and my people, and either (1) resume a peaceful life or (2) leave, if I could not rid myself of old animosities sufficiently to have that peaceful life where I was.
> 
> The Palestinians should have made such a decision in 1949.
> 
> Or 1967 at the very latest.
> 
> Palestinian intransigence and inability to face reality are the sticking points, and have been, for decades.
Click to expand...


The Christian and Muslim villages were attacked by well trained and well-armed Haganah, Irgun and other Jewish forces, The Palestinians were basically unarmed.  Jordan, Egypt and Syria had the armies.  I don't think you can fault them for trying to save themselves.  The Native Americans resisted violently until the late 19th century (Geronimo surrendered in 1886) , almost 300 years.  So, I probably agree that the best for the Palestinians would be to surrender and accept Jewish rule, but it runs against human nature.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought, I just dismantled your bullshit accusation.
> 
> Do you, Tinmore and Joe know eachother personally BTW.
> You guys are like the three stooges
> But don't get offended Pbel, you are the smarter stooge!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO they produced one of their famous ANTI SEMITIC polls with the questions weighted against Israel, and have been censured for it by the UK government
Click to expand...



Provide a link, or is this another lie?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  _et al,_
> 
> In some respects, we are in part, still applying 18th Century logic.  But again, there is a mix of a much more advanced concept trying to be applied.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.
> 
> To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.
> 
> It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.
> 
> It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.
> 
> Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance.  The same could be said about the Palestinians.  But, that is something that runs counter to human nature.  Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians.  What would you do?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nice analogy; thoughtful and insightful.
> 
> There is a significant difference in the two sets of conditions (North American Indian _'vs'_ Palestinian).  In the case of the New World, whether we talk about the cultures and tribes that were made extinct _(ex. Beothuk Tribes, Karankawa Tribes, Mandans Tribes, Chisca Tribes, Hachaath Tribes)_ or other tribes that were made near extinct _(ex. Algonquian, Cherokee, Cheyennes, Iroquois, Lakotas, Pima, Seminole, Sioux, and Tuscarora)_.  In contrast, the Arab was never in danger of extinction; even the Arab Palestinian grows in numbers (not diminishing).
> 
> Secondly, while the 18th Century treatment of the North American Indian was, to be sure, a black mark in the history of the US, today, whether you look _Eskimo_ in the far North, the Pacific Islands _(Samoans and Polynesians)_, or the tribes of the Continental US, these indigenous cultures are revered and granted special protections culturally, territorially, and commercially.  This is a by-product of social growth within the species and recognition for the special needs over time.
> 
> I spoke-out before, for the special needs of the Jewish People.  A similar theory and concept applies.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco, the analogy is not perfect, Europeans after WW2, were not as, what's the word, sanguine, and less driven to eliminate non-Europeans as they were 3-4 centuries ago.  And, the non-Jews of Palestine had/have many millions of cultural "brothers" in close proximity.   But being able to move up to 700,000 people out of an area to make it available nearly exclusively to Europeans was no mean feat.


----------



## toastman

aris2chat said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is defined on *all *maps by the 1949 armistice lines.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically* not* to be political or territorial borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this instead which is the original demarcation until 1967 when Un resolution 242 came into being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The partition plan was rejected by the arabs.  They refused to recognize such borders.
> 
> Per the '48 Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance, land taken in the defense of it's state became part of the state.
> 
> If Israel is willing to hand over land for the creation of a palestinian state, that will come only through negotiations, not a demand by palestinians.
Click to expand...


Tinmore is a massive liar. Current Israel maps are NOT define by the armistice lines. The armisitce agreements were signed wayyyyyy before the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan agreements, which the U.N wrote, that gave Israel internationally recognized agreements with both countries.

Israel Map - Israel Satellite Image - Physical - Political

I have told this to Tinmore many many times. Not only have I shown him the above map, but I've also shows him the U.N agreements with Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan from the U.N website .

Let him live in his fantasy world. It is Tinmore who is fooling himself and no one else.


----------



## montelatici

There will never be a Palestinian state, so what is the argument about?


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> There will never be a Palestinian state, so what is the argument about?



That will be very unfortunate for the palestinians, but the arabs will have to take responsibility for the refugees and absorb or resettle them they cannot continue as a charity victim expecting the UN to support them.  They will have to apply for citizenship elsewhere in the world.
It would have been to their best interest to have negotiated with Israel as a united people not half the population intent on waging war.  They have been ill used by the rest of the arab world and forced to be less that human.  A few managed to become billionaires at the expense of their fellow people.
It is also unfortunate that so much of the world have found yet more reason to hate and persecute jews rather than embrace their return to their ancient homeland and what they have achieved there.


----------



## toastman

montelatici said:


> There will never be a Palestinian state, so what is the argument about?



The one state solution is not going to happen either.....


----------



## Kondor3

If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...

And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...

And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...

We are left with...

1. the Jews are all slaughtered

2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine

3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine

4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered

5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine

6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine

Did I miss anything?


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?



Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

The question (and the options) stand, unless you have something to add...

We seem close to reaching consensus that neither a one- nor two-state solution will work...

If true, then, rather than belabor the whys-and-wherefores for the thousandth time, and wearing-out the strings on that ukulele, or beating that dead horse ad infinitum ad nauseum...

We need to be looking to the future...

The question is designed to frame the different ways in which that future might materialize...

If you have something to contribute in that context, then do so...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...
Click to expand...


Stop whining !


----------



## toastman

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The question (and the options) stand, unless you have something to add...
> 
> We seem close to reaching consensus that neither a one- nor two-state solution will work...
> 
> If true, then, rather than belabor the whys-and-wherefores for the thousandth time, and wearing-out the strings on that ukulele, or beating that dead horse ad infinitum ad nauseum...
> 
> We need to be looking to the future...
> 
> The question is designed to frame the different ways in which that future might materialize...
> 
> If you have something to contribute in that context, then do so...
Click to expand...


Pbel contributing to the debate ?? Unlikely..

Whining, very likely.

Right Peebel?


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The question (and the options) stand, unless you have something to add...
> 
> We seem close to reaching consensus that neither a one- nor two-state solution will work...
> 
> If true, then, rather than belobor the whys-and-wherefores for the thousandth time...
> 
> We need to be looking to the future...
> 
> The question is designed to frame the different ways in which that future might materialize...
Click to expand...


So your answer is one should slaughter the other...I keep telling you the Palestinians are mere pawns...Military studies have shown that if Arab forces attacked all at once they win simply because Israel would run out of bullets like Sadam did with Iran that defeated him with kids and clubs...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The question (and the options) stand, unless you have something to add...
> 
> We seem close to reaching consensus that neither a one- nor two-state solution will work...
> 
> If true, then, rather than belobor the whys-and-wherefores for the thousandth time...
> 
> We need to be looking to the future...
> 
> The question is designed to frame the different ways in which that future might materialize...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your answer is one should slaughter the other...
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

I listed six possibilities, not two.



> ...I keep telling you the Palestinians are mere pawns...


Immaterial to a macro-level range of possible futures.



> Military studies have shown that if Arab forces attacked all at once they win simply because Israel would run out of bullets like Sadam did with Iran that defeated him with kids and clubs...


Wake me up when the Arabs show any signs of attacking all at once in overwhelming strength.

Those days are gone... donor exhaustion and the West-Arab wars and the Arab Spring have seen to that, for generations to come.

By the time they get their heads out of their asses, decades from now, the problem will have been long-since settled, one way or another.

My own particular focus is upon how that 'settling of problems' (cutting of the Gordian Knot) will be accomplished.

And what the cost will be... in blood, and treasure, and soul.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The question (and the options) stand, unless you have something to add...
> 
> We seem close to reaching consensus that neither a one- nor two-state solution will work...
> 
> If true, then, rather than belobor the whys-and-wherefores for the thousandth time...
> 
> We need to be looking to the future...
> 
> The question is designed to frame the different ways in which that future might materialize...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is one should slaughter the other...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> I listed six possibilities, not two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I keep telling you the Palestinians are mere pawns...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial to a macro-level range of possible futures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military studies have shown that if Arab forces attacked all at once they win simply because Israel would run out of bullets like Sadam did with Iran that defeated him with kids and clubs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wake me up when the Arabs show any signs of attacking all at once in overwhelming strength.
> 
> Those days are done... donor exhaustion and the West-Arab wars and the Arab Spring have seen to that, for generations to come.By the time they get their heads out of their asses, decades from now, the problem will have been long-since settled, one way or another.
> 
> My own particular focus is upon how that 'settling of problems' (cutting of the Gordian Knot) will be accomplished.
Click to expand...


Without a real acceptable peace, in 50, a hundred, three hundred years of victorious Israel and then a slaughter as you predict...Let History show you the future repeated... In the game of ultimate survival, numbers have always won.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is one should slaughter the other...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> I listed six possibilities, not two.
> 
> 
> Immaterial to a macro-level range of possible futures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military studies have shown that if Arab forces attacked all at once they win simply because Israel would run out of bullets like Sadam did with Iran that defeated him with kids and clubs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wake me up when the Arabs show any signs of attacking all at once in overwhelming strength.
> 
> Those days are done... donor exhaustion and the West-Arab wars and the Arab Spring have seen to that, for generations to come.By the time they get their heads out of their asses, decades from now, the problem will have been long-since settled, one way or another.
> 
> My own particular focus is upon how that 'settling of problems' (cutting of the Gordian Knot) will be accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a real acceptable peace, in 50, a hundred, three hundred years of victorious Israel and then a slaughter as you predict...Let History show you the future repeated... In the game of ultimate survival, numbers have always won.
Click to expand...

Israel also understands this, no doubt.

Which is why I predict that Israel will not allow the situation to drag on that long, in order for such an outcome to materialize.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> I listed six possibilities, not two.
> 
> 
> Immaterial to a macro-level range of possible futures.
> 
> 
> Wake me up when the Arabs show any signs of attacking all at once in overwhelming strength.
> 
> Those days are done... donor exhaustion and the West-Arab wars and the Arab Spring have seen to that, for generations to come.By the time they get their heads out of their asses, decades from now, the problem will have been long-since settled, one way or another.
> 
> My own particular focus is upon how that 'settling of problems' (cutting of the Gordian Knot) will be accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without a real acceptable peace, in 50, a hundred, three hundred years of victorious Israel and then a slaughter as you predict...Let History show you the future repeated... In the game of ultimate survival, numbers have always won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel also understands this, no doubt.
> 
> Which is why I predict that Israel will not allow the situation to drag on that long, in order for such an outcome to materialize.
Click to expand...


What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without a real acceptable peace, in 50, a hundred, three hundred years of victorious Israel and then a slaughter as you predict...Let History show you the future repeated... In the game of ultimate survival, numbers have always won.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel also understands this, no doubt.
> 
> Which is why I predict that Israel will not allow the situation to drag on that long, in order for such an outcome to materialize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
Click to expand...

Israel does not need to occupy the Arabian peninsula.

She need only remove either themselves or the Palestinians from the equation.

That way, the Arabs are off the hook, and there is nothing left to fight over.

Now, or three hundred years from now.

Nobody is going to go to war in the year 2314 over somebody else's great-great-great-great-great grandfather being removed from an ancient equation.

It is quite probable that we are fast approaching such a removal.

If true, then we are now dealing with the questions: Who? When? How?

This is not a very appealing answer, and the pity is that it did not have to come to this.

But if a two-state solution is not viable, and a one-state solution is not viable, and if the present state of affairs cannot be sustained for much longer, then what is left?


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> ...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...


Oh, America defeated both Iraq and Afghanistan easily enough.

It's just that America doesn't have the brains to blow the shit out of the enemy and then just walk away, preferring, stupidly, to Nation-Build, in places that couldn't find their own asses with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.


----------



## Roudy

And since Jews aren't like Muslims or Nazis, they cannot slaughter.  

So we're basically left with the only solution that everybody seems to be running away from;

 Israel should just annex the West Bank and call it by its right name for  the last three thousand years, Judeah and Samaria, and through a slow process provide Israeli citizenship to the Arabs and treat them as Israel is currently treating its 1.8 million Arab citizens, with equal rights. 

Problem solved. The end.


----------



## Kondor3

Roudy said:


> And since Jews aren't like Muslims or Nazis, they cannot slaughter.
> 
> So we're basically left with the only solution that everybody seems to be running away from;
> 
> Israel should just annex the West Bank and call it by its right name for  the last three thousand years, Judeah and Samaria, and through a slow process provide Israeli citizenship to the Arabs and treat them as Israel is currently treating its 1.8 million Arab citizens, with equal rights.
> 
> Problem solved. The end.


That is the One-State solution.

There are many who do not believe that a One-State solution will work.

It is true that the Jews cannot slaughter.

If the choice is slaughter or expulsion or demographic overwhelming, can they expel?


----------



## Statistikhengst

montelatici said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Zionutters the only unbiased evidence is Zionist propaganda.  While waiting for the 2014 ratings, in 2013 it looks like Israel is still vying for last place in terms most unpopular countries and is still firmly entrenched in the pariah category.
> 
> "Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally."
> 
> BBC News - BBC poll: Germany most popular country in the world
> 
> And, the BBC was not ever censured for the polls you lying s.o.s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, "Sborra in Bocca",  time for some easy math:
> 
> 
> 7,000,000,000 homo sapiens on the planet.
> 
> 26,000 homo sapiens in the survey
> 
> 
> That it 0.00037% of the worlds population.
> 
> that is 37 ten-thousandths of 1%, smaller than the smallest drop of water you could imagine in a huge bucket.
> 
> The poll releases no internals. We do not know where those 26,000 are geographically located and if the proportions for such a ridiculous study are even close to what they should be.
> 
> For all we know, among the 26,000 interviewees, 500 are from the PA and only 6 are from Israel.
> 
> The poll is hardly representative.
> 
> It should be also noted that BBC's election polling is notorously off, almost as bad as Gallup is in the USA.
> 
> 
> With enough criminal energy and a lot of propaganda, I could also make a poll look like 45% of people on the planet actually liked Hitler, a result I bet you would like, little Duce. But that doesn't mean it would be true.
> 
> Nuff said.
> [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=15726]Hossfly[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36154]Roudy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=44172]Sweet_Caroline[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26838]Ropey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear, yet another poll is consistent with the BBC poll:
> 
> "new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan."
> 
> European Poll: Israel Biggest Threat To World Peace | The Jewish Federations of North America
Click to expand...



Hello, you liar:

the "Jewish Federations of North America", to which you linked, has an entry without a date and the link to the European Commission Poll it mentions is DEFUNCT.

The entire site is also at least 8 years old and has not been updated since then - on it's Social action page, it lists Norm Coleman has having been just elected. It mentions jewish activism in government up to Clinton but nothing about either Bush or Obama, so it looks like the site has not be updated since 2000 - 14 years ago. If it is even a bona-fide jewish site.  I have never seen it or heard of it before.

You really are Sborra in Bocca, what? Yepp, you are.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?_"
> 
> 
> 
> Fight like hell.
> 
> Rather than run.
> 
> Until I won.
> 
> Or until I lost.
> 
> And, if I lost...
> 
> I would make-nice with my old enemies and cut the best deal that I could, for myself, my family, and my people, and either (1) resume a peaceful life or (2) leave, if I could not rid myself of old animosities sufficiently to have that peaceful life where I was.
> 
> The Palestinians should have made such a decision in 1949.
> 
> Or 1967 at the very latest.
> 
> Palestinian intransigence and inability to face reality are the sticking points, and have been, for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian and Muslim villages were attacked by well trained and well-armed Haganah, Irgun and other Jewish forces, The Palestinians were basically unarmed.  Jordan, Egypt and Syria had the armies.  I don't think you can fault them for trying to save themselves.  The Native Americans resisted violently until the late 19th century (Geronimo surrendered in 1886) , almost 300 years.  So, I probably agree that the best for the Palestinians would be to surrender and accept Jewish rule, but it runs against human nature.
Click to expand...





They may have been trained but hardly well armed, relying on outdated single shot Lee Enfield rifles of WW1 vintage. The arab muslims were well armed in comparison and had modern semi automatics, the ones who were not armed were the Christians and Jews who were not allowed any weapons not even knives. All down to the muslims cowardice when faced by an armed opponent so they enforced dhimmi laws. They International law at the time had given Israel the right to a NATIONAL HOME and also given the arab muslims a part of the land. It was the arab muslims that wanted everything because of their religions teachings.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BBC did a scientific poll with an acceptable margin of error...you whine against science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO they produced one of their famous ANTI SEMITIC polls with the questions weighted against Israel, and have been censured for it by the UK government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link, or is this another lie?
Click to expand...





 Like this

Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage from supporters of both Israel and Palestine led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist Malcolm Balen, referred to as the Balen Report and completed in 2004. The BBC's refusal to release the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 resulted in a long-running and ongoing legal case.[40][41] This led to speculation that the report was damning, as well as to accusations of hypocrisy, as the BBC frequently made use itself of Freedom of Information Act requests when researching news stories


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?






 Both the Jews and the muslims  are slaughtered

 Both the Jews and the muslims voluntarily leave

 Both the Jews and the muslims are compelled to leave

 And the land becomes purely Christian and is supported by the Christian nations .


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you sound like a repeating ukulele...
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> The question (and the options) stand, unless you have something to add...
> 
> We seem close to reaching consensus that neither a one- nor two-state solution will work...
> 
> If true, then, rather than belobor the whys-and-wherefores for the thousandth time...
> 
> We need to be looking to the future...
> 
> The question is designed to frame the different ways in which that future might materialize...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your answer is one should slaughter the other...I keep telling you the Palestinians are mere pawns...Military studies have shown that if Arab forces attacked all at once they win simply because Israel would run out of bullets like Sadam did with Iran that defeated him with kids and clubs...
Click to expand...





 The arab forces tried that 3 times so why didn't they win. The problem is the arab forces are split into different sects that refuse to work together. So a Suunni commander will never be able to command a Shi'ite army.


----------



## aris2chat

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?_"
> 
> 
> 
> Fight like hell.
> 
> Rather than run.
> 
> Until I won.
> 
> Or until I lost.
> 
> And, if I lost...
> 
> I would make-nice with my old enemies and cut the best deal that I could, for myself, my family, and my people, and either (1) resume a peaceful life or (2) leave, if I could not rid myself of old animosities sufficiently to have that peaceful life where I was.
> 
> The Palestinians should have made such a decision in 1949.
> 
> Or 1967 at the very latest.
> 
> Palestinian intransigence and inability to face reality are the sticking points, and have been, for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian and Muslim villages were attacked by well trained and well-armed Haganah, Irgun and other Jewish forces, The Palestinians were basically unarmed.  Jordan, Egypt and Syria had the armies.  I don't think you can fault them for trying to save themselves.  The Native Americans resisted violently until the late 19th century (Geronimo surrendered in 1886) , almost 300 years.  So, I probably agree that the best for the Palestinians would be to surrender and accept Jewish rule, but it runs against human nature.
Click to expand...


Israel was buying old weapons form Czechoslovakia and cannibalizing part from other machines to make as many complete to use in their defense.
Egypt and Jordan was supplied by the UK.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your answer is one should slaughter the other...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> I listed six possibilities, not two.
> 
> 
> Immaterial to a macro-level range of possible futures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military studies have shown that if Arab forces attacked all at once they win simply because Israel would run out of bullets like Sadam did with Iran that defeated him with kids and clubs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wake me up when the Arabs show any signs of attacking all at once in overwhelming strength.
> 
> Those days are done... donor exhaustion and the West-Arab wars and the Arab Spring have seen to that, for generations to come.By the time they get their heads out of their asses, decades from now, the problem will have been long-since settled, one way or another.
> 
> My own particular focus is upon how that 'settling of problems' (cutting of the Gordian Knot) will be accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a real acceptable peace, in 50, a hundred, three hundred years of victorious Israel and then a slaughter as you predict...Let History show you the future repeated... In the game of ultimate survival, numbers have always won.
Click to expand...




 As has also been shown by history too large a population results in nature evening the balance through pandemics and crop failures. So the Palestinians should be making friends with Israel in case of this as Israel has the skills to combat the pandemics and crop failures


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without a real acceptable peace, in 50, a hundred, three hundred years of victorious Israel and then a slaughter as you predict...Let History show you the future repeated... In the game of ultimate survival, numbers have always won.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel also understands this, no doubt.
> 
> Which is why I predict that Israel will not allow the situation to drag on that long, in order for such an outcome to materialize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
Click to expand...





What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL


----------



## Phoenall

Kondor3 said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And since Jews aren't like Muslims or Nazis, they cannot slaughter.
> 
> So we're basically left with the only solution that everybody seems to be running away from;
> 
> Israel should just annex the West Bank and call it by its right name for  the last three thousand years, Judeah and Samaria, and through a slow process provide Israeli citizenship to the Arabs and treat them as Israel is currently treating its 1.8 million Arab citizens, with equal rights.
> 
> Problem solved. The end.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the One-State solution.
> 
> There are many who do not believe that a One-State solution will work.
> 
> It is true that the Jews cannot slaughter.
> 
> If the choice is slaughter or expulsion or demographic overwhelming, can they expel?
Click to expand...





 I think if push came to shove the Jews could slaughter and be remorseful afterwards, it would only take the right mixture of circumstances. Just as the British could slaughter the muslim population if the right circumstances happened. One such scenario would be the cold blooded mass murder of children by muslim extremists in the cause of palestine


----------



## MrMax

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel also understands this, no doubt.
> 
> Which is why I predict that Israel will not allow the situation to drag on that long, in order for such an outcome to materialize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL
Click to expand...


Eventually the Pals will see that it's in their interest to surrender and make peace. It worked wonders for Japan and Germany. Anyways, the different factions of Islam are too busy car bombing each other over who gets to be their pope, to be of any real use to the Pals. 

PS America has troops in Saudi Arabia, meaning we own Mecca, the carpet kissing capital of the world.


----------



## RoccoR

MrMax,  _et al,_

There is a mistake here.



MrMax said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eventually the Pals will see that it's in their interest to surrender and make peace. It worked wonders for Japan and Germany. Anyways, the different factions of Islam are too busy car bombing each other over who gets to be their pope, to be of any real use to the Pals.
> 
> PS America has troops in Saudi Arabia, meaning we own Mecca, the carpet kissing capital of the world.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

While there may be a few advisors in Saudi Arabia, there are no conventional US combat elements in the Kingdom; especial none - anywhere near - the holiest sites of Islam _(Mecca and Medina)_; none.

The US does not want to, in any way, threaten the holiest sites in Islam.  It serves no strategic purpose for American Interests and can only have a negative impact. 

The US is gradually changing its strategies from one of a political-military hegemony, to that of a nation with influential economic and commercial resources with networking connections; backed by the umbrella protection of its military.  To some extent, our friend "pbel" is correct, the US cannot hope to secularly tame and politically co-opt the such nations as Iraq or Afghanistan.  It is inconsistent with the developmental potential of such nations having similar historical profiles.   

The US will not have a chance to make a positive impact on the Middle East for several generation, if even then.  It needs to back away slowly and let the natural forces of the region seek a balance.  However, the political aspirations in America are not likely to understand that concept for quite some time into the future.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the present state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely...
> 
> And if the ONE-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> And if the TWO-state solution cannot be made to work...
> 
> We are left with...
> 
> 1. the Jews are all slaughtered
> 
> 2. the Jews voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 3. the Jews are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 4. the Muslim-Palestinians are all slaughtered
> 
> 5. the Muslim-Palestinians voluntarily leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> 6. the Muslim-Palestinians are compelled to leave the region formerly known as (Old) Palestine
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the Jews and the muslims  are slaughtered
> 
> Both the Jews and the muslims voluntarily leave
> 
> Both the Jews and the muslims are compelled to leave
> 
> And the land becomes purely Christian and is supported by the Christian nations .
Click to expand...

I suppose we could add the 'Christian' options as (7), (8) and (9), but...

Would Christendom (_the secularized West, and Christianity's outlying non-Western regions_) care enough, in a _religious_ context, to undertake such a Herculean task?

I'm having great difficulty believing that the answer would be 'Yes', for a variety of reasons.

Even in this kind of increasingly likely scenario, where neither a one-state nor a two-state solution can be made to work, amongst the Jews and Muslims of the region.

Whatever collective residual Crusader Mentality still exists in The West, seems to have been largely sublimated into having the Jews act as proxies and as third-party caretakers of the Holy Land.


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO they produced one of their famous ANTI SEMITIC polls with the questions weighted against Israel, and have been censured for it by the UK government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link, or is this another lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like this
> 
> Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage from supporters of both Israel and Palestine led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist Malcolm Balen, referred to as the Balen Report and completed in 2004. The BBC's refusal to release the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 resulted in a long-running and ongoing legal case.[40][41] This led to speculation that the report was damning, as well as to accusations of hypocrisy, as the BBC frequently made use itself of Freedom of Information Act requests when researching news stories
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with the popularity poll of nations that BBC undertakes yearly.


----------



## Kondor3

RoccoR said:


> ..._To some extent, our friend "pbel" is correct, the US cannot hope to secularly tame and politically co-opt the such nations as Iraq or Afghanistan.  It is inconsistent with the developmental potential of such nations having similar historical profiles_...


I agree with this observation myself.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel also understands this, no doubt.
> 
> Which is why I predict that Israel will not allow the situation to drag on that long, in order for such an outcome to materialize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL[/QUOTE]
> 
> LMAO...Walls can't stop Rockets...
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL[/QUOTE]
> 
> LMAO...Walls can't stop Rockets...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israels technology can ...
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL[/QUOTE]
> 
> LMAO...Walls can't stop Rockets...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israels technology can ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean American Technology, and even that cannot stop them all, remember that when you speak about Tiny Israel Toast.
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israels technology can ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Technology, and even that cannot stop them all, remember that when you speak about Tiny Israel Toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean Israels technology.
> 
> And I never said they can stop all of them. We know how happy it makes you that some of them land in Israel Peebel.
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Technology, and even that cannot stop them all, remember that when you speak about Tiny Israel Toast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean Israels technology.
> 
> And I never said they can stop all of them. We know how happy it makes you that some of them land in Israel Peebel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate me and provide me a link that Israel does not use the Patriot System of Rocket defense...
Click to expand...


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean Israels technology.
> 
> And I never said they can stop all of them. We know how happy it makes you that some of them land in Israel Peebel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate me and provide me a link that Israel does not use the Patriot System of Rocket defense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Iron Dome obviously.
> 
> Wow Peebel !!!
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate me and provide me a link that Israel does not use the Patriot System of Rocket defense...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Iron Dome obviously.
> 
> Wow Peebel !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
Click to expand...


----------



## Hossfly

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Iron Dome obviously.
> 
> Wow Peebel !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That scenario is what 50 megaton warheads are designed for.
Click to expand...


----------



## Roudy

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israels technology can ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Technology, and even that cannot stop them all, remember that when you speak about Tiny Israel Toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he means Isrseli technology, little Mussolini.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Kondor3 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._To some extent, our friend "pbel" is correct, the US cannot hope to secularly tame and politically co-opt the such nations as Iraq or Afghanistan.  It is inconsistent with the developmental potential of such nations having similar historical profiles_...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this observation myself.
Click to expand...


You can defeat an army but it is difficult to defeat a people.

Iraq's army fell in days. That was over ten years ago.


----------



## Roudy

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Iron Dome obviously.
> 
> Wow Peebel !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't firecrackers, they're missiles, but if you insist perhaps for the sake of experimentation you'll allow one to land on your house and we can examine the results.
Click to expand...


----------



## MrMax

RoccoR said:


> MrMax,  _et al,_
> 
> There is a mistake here.
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually the Pals will see that it's in their interest to surrender and make peace. It worked wonders for Japan and Germany. Anyways, the different factions of Islam are too busy car bombing each other over who gets to be their pope, to be of any real use to the Pals.
> 
> PS America has troops in Saudi Arabia, meaning we own Mecca, the carpet kissing capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While there may be a few advisors in Saudi Arabia, there are no conventional US combat elements in the Kingdom; especial none - anywhere near - the holiest sites of Islam _(Mecca and Medina)_; none.
> 
> The US does not want to, in any way, threaten the holiest sites in Islam.  It serves no strategic purpose for American Interests and can only have a negative impact.
> 
> The US is gradually changing its strategies from one of a political-military hegemony, to that of a nation with influential economic and commercial resources with networking connections; backed by the umbrella protection of its military.  To some extent, our friend "pbel" is correct, the US cannot hope to secularly tame and politically co-opt the such nations as Iraq or Afghanistan.  It is inconsistent with the developmental potential of such nations having similar historical profiles.
> 
> The US will not have a chance to make a positive impact on the Middle East for several generation, if even then.  It needs to back away slowly and let the natural forces of the region seek a balance.  However, the political aspirations in America are not likely to understand that concept for quite some time into the future.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You're wrong. Who is protecting Mecca? The US. That's who. In other words it's the US' property ultimately to decide who can attack it and who can't.


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._To some extent, our friend "pbel" is correct, the US cannot hope to secularly tame and politically co-opt the such nations as Iraq or Afghanistan.  It is inconsistent with the developmental potential of such nations having similar historical profiles_...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this observation myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can defeat an army but it is difficult to defeat a people.
> 
> Iraq's army fell in days. That was over ten years ago.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians aren't a people, they're a made up identity as of 1967 who didn't even have a country or separate culture before that. They're just bloodthirsty Arabs who got stuck in the middle, when their Arab brethren decided to destroy Israel unsuccessfully, many times.


----------



## pbel

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> 
> 
> That scenario is what 50 megaton warheads are designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> 
> 
> That scenario is what 50 megaton warheads are designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why Iran wants nukes and why Pakistan has got some BMs turned away from India and towards Israel.
> 
> Not a great environment to be in.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scenario is what 50 megaton warheads are designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot foresee circumstances in which either Iran nor Pakistan will risk Nuclear War against Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt.
> 
> We welcome death for them as well, and help them to find it, at every opportunity.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> LMAO...Walls can't stop Rockets...


True.

But massive-overkill -caliber counterstrikes can.

Which may be what gets served-up next.

Designed to make prior counterstrikes look like love-taps by comparison.


----------



## pbel

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot foresee circumstances in which either Iran nor Pakistan will risk Nuclear War against Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt.
> 
> We welcome death for them as well, and help them to find it, at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, the same thing was said about Castro's rebels in Cuba in the Godfather movie, I think it was Lansky..."you can not defeat a people who are willing to die for their cause."
> 
> We shall see.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link, or is this another lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like this
> 
> Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage from supporters of both Israel and Palestine led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist Malcolm Balen, referred to as the Balen Report and completed in 2004. The BBC's refusal to release the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 resulted in a long-running and ongoing legal case.[40][41] This led to speculation that the report was damning, as well as to accusations of hypocrisy, as the BBC frequently made use itself of Freedom of Information Act requests when researching news stories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the popularity poll of nations that BBC undertakes yearly.
Click to expand...





 You mean the two question poll that is heavily weighted against Israel. The fact is the BBC is an ANTI SEMITIC organisation and needs to be shut down saving the UK £billions


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can Israel do to stop the march of History? She cannot occupy the Arab Peninsula...Like America who easily defeats Stick&Stone armies, she cannot defeat a nation as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown...In this conflict of Civilizations, American and Israeli Victories are shallow and Pyrrhic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What chance is there of arab unity in any future, it will either be an extremist controlled caliphate with many deaths and illiteracy. Or it will be a  moderate modern control that will make friends with all nations and bring an end to terrorism. In either scenario the Palestinians will be destroyed while Israel will be secure behind an IRON WALL[/QUOTE]
> 
> LMAO...Walls can't stop Rockets...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They do if they are big enough and technologically advanced . I live very close to the Dew Line station that can pinpoint a missiles point of take off and send interceptors at them within seconds. I believe that Israel are far more advanced than this with Iron Dome.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israels technology can ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Technology, and even that cannot stop them all, remember that when you speak about Tiny Israel Toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the Dew Line is US technology that is decades behind what Israel has developed, and the US is looking to buying Iron Dome from the Israelis
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Technology, and even that cannot stop them all, remember that when you speak about Tiny Israel Toast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the Dew Line is US technology that is decades behind what Israel has developed, and the US is looking to buying Iron Dome from the Israelis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably stole our plans and copy as usual then sell to China, that's Israel, our friend...
> 
> Remember Pollard!
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Iron Dome obviously.
> 
> Wow Peebel !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can photo shopped rockets do any harm to anyone, or did you forget about those. As for Pakistan done forget that India is right next door and any rockets from Pakistan will see India's winging their way towards their capital. Iran has far too much on its plate to worry about Israel as things are going bad for them, and they don't want UN sanctions around their necks. Russia is about to be frozen out by the west because of its invasion of the Ukraine and Crimea
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..._To some extent, our friend "pbel" is correct, the US cannot hope to secularly tame and politically co-opt the such nations as Iraq or Afghanistan.  It is inconsistent with the developmental potential of such nations having similar historical profiles_...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this observation myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can defeat an army but it is difficult to defeat a people.
> 
> Iraq's army fell in days. That was over ten years ago.
Click to expand...




And then the insurgents from iran flooded in to gain power, why are they still fighting for control after 10 years ?

 Don't forget were the muslim messiah will come from


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can photo shopped rockets do any harm to anyone, or did you forget about those. As for Pakistan done forget that India is right next door and any rockets from Pakistan will see India's winging their way towards their capital. Iran has far too much on its plate to worry about Israel as things are going bad for them, and they don't want UN sanctions around their necks. Russia is about to be frozen out by the west because of its invasion of the Ukraine and Crimea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are polls available to show that the people of Pakistan view Israel as a greater hate than India. Pakistan, protected Osama, and one car-bomb away from regime change by their Taliban.
> 
> Keep dreaming.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scenario is what 50 megaton warheads are designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only Islamic nation with nuclear weapons is Pakistan, and they are old compared to the rest of the world. Next door is one of Israel's friends and their nuclear weapons are relatively new, and are more abundant. So half to Pakistan and half to Iran and the problem is solved. Then the UN sends in the troops to dissuade Pakistan and Iran from ever trying that again. They are both signatories of the UN charter and Geneva conventions and know that nuclear war is not allowed, nor is all out war
Click to expand...


----------



## MrMax

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only Islamic nation with nuclear weapons is Pakistan*, and they are old compared to the rest of the world. Next door is one of Israel's friends and their nuclear weapons are relatively new, and are more abundant. So half to Pakistan and half to Iran and the problem is solved. Then the UN sends in the troops to dissuade Pakistan and Iran from ever trying that again. They are both signatories of the UN charter and Geneva conventions and know that nuclear war is not allowed, nor is all out war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're still trying to train donkeys to deliver the weapons.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only Islamic nation with nuclear weapons is Pakistan, and they are old compared to the rest of the world. Next door is one of Israel's friends and their nuclear weapons are relatively new, and are more abundant. So half to Pakistan and half to Iran and the problem is solved. Then the UN sends in the troops to dissuade Pakistan and Iran from ever trying that again. They are both signatories of the UN charter and Geneva conventions and know that nuclear war is not allowed, nor is all out war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you propose that Israel nuke Iran and Pakistan and then you want the UN to go in with troops to dissuade Pakistan and Iran from ever doing what again?  I am really trying to understand, this intricate strategy you have developed.
Click to expand...


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you and that's exactly what will happen if Israel is not accepted into the neighborhood.
> 
> I read somewhere, that when a reporter asked an Islamic fighter why he thought they would defeat the Western Zionist invader who was so strong? His reply: they fear death, we welcome it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only Islamic nation with nuclear weapons is Pakistan, and they are old compared to the rest of the world. Next door is one of Israel's friends and their nuclear weapons are relatively new, and are more abundant. So half to Pakistan and half to Iran and the problem is solved. Then the UN sends in the troops to dissuade Pakistan and Iran from ever trying that again. They are both signatories of the UN charter and Geneva conventions and know that nuclear war is not allowed, nor is all out war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course Israel is exempted from even revealing it has nukes and your analyses is that of a delusional and a political neophyte because Indians dislike Israel as much as the Pakis. This is what they are taught.
> 
> Is Israel really Pakistan?s enemy? ? The Express Tribune Blog
> 
> Is Israel really Pakistan's enemy? &#8211; The Express Tribune Blog
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/17006/is-israel-really-pakistans-enemy/*
> Apr 27, 2013 - The Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Israeli .... to the Israelis rather than just talking to each other about how much they hate Israel). ... Pakistanis hate Israel because it harms Muslims.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

pbel,  _et al,_



pbel said:


> Of course Israel is exempted from even revealing it has nukes and your analyses is that of a delusional and a political neophyte because Indians dislike Israel as much as the Pakis. This is what they are taught.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no such thing as a disclosure exemption.  A nation is either a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation (NPT) of Nuclear Weapons, _(not necessarily including the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols)_ or it is not.  There are two broad classes of signatories:

Nuclear-Weapon State Parties (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States)
Non-nuclear-Weapon State Parties
Four countries are presumed to have acquired, nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.  Safeguards are based on assessments of the correctness and completeness of a State&#8217;s declared nuclear material and nuclear-related activities.   Obviously, if the nation is not a signatory, it doesn't make a declaration on the nuclear material and nuclear-related activities of that nation.​
There is no requirement for India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel to disclose the scope and nature of their nuclear material and nuclear-related activities.  They disclose what they will.

The safeguards measures under Additional Protocols are the mechanism to grant inspection authority that are provided for in underlying the comprehensive safeguards agreements.  It simply doesn't apply to India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.



pbel said:


> ... Pakistanis hate Israel because it harms Muslims.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a religious based argument and not causal based.  Not all Israelis are Jewish.  And Israel is not in dispute with the Muslim World.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Iron Dome obviously.
> 
> Wow Peebel !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea forgot about the Hamas defense system of fire cracker control...Even Hamas gets through now and then...
> 
> Think Iran, Pakistan and their allies Toast, before Israel becomes Toast!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection Peebel....
> 
> What about those countries ?? Are you trying to tell me that if Israel goes back to the '67 borders, those countries will recognize Israel and become friendly with them?
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

Phoenall said:


> Don't forget were the muslim messiah will come from












But he gets defeated, then frozen, then shot out into deep space, to become someone _else's_ problem, right?


----------



## Art__Allm

Phoenall said:


> A snide way of saying that the Jews were just as bad 4000 years ago as the muslims are today, so we should not talk about what the muslims still practise.



Oriental Jews still practice their old Semitic traditions, dude!

European Jews were forbidden to do this, and they whined and called it "Anti-Semitism".


----------



## Hossfly

Art__Allm said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A snide way of saying that the Jews were just as bad 4000 years ago as the muslims are today, so we should not talk about what the muslims still practise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oriental Jews still practice their old Semitic traditions, dude!
> 
> European Jews were forbidden to do this, and they whined and called it "Anti-Semitism".
Click to expand...

Are you one of them pinko commie Arabists? If so, StormFront is three doors down.


----------



## Sally

Hossfly said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A snide way of saying that the Jews were just as bad 4000 years ago as the muslims are today, so we should not talk about what the muslims still practise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oriental Jews still practice their old Semitic traditions, dude!
> 
> European Jews were forbidden to do this, and they whined and called it "Anti-Semitism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one of them pinko commie Arabists? If so, StormFront is three doors down.
Click to expand...


Strange how Art seems to know all about what Oriental Jews have done.  Hmm, wonder where he is getting this stuff.  Maybe German actually has some sites just like Stormfront.com.  You have to remember, Hossfly, that in Germany today, there are those siding with the Muslims in that "the enmy of my enmy is my friend game."  I wonder, since Art is in Germany and posting now on this forum, if he can give us the latest about the Turks saying that the Germans should learn Turkish instead of the other way around.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A snide way of saying that the Jews were just as bad 4000 years ago as the muslims are today, so we should not talk about what the muslims still practise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oriental Jews still practice their old Semitic traditions, dude!
> 
> European Jews were forbidden to do this, and they whined and called it "Anti-Semitism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you one of them pinko commie Arabists? If so, StormFront is three doors down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, at Stormfront they string up communists and socialists.  They are more hated than Jews, Arabs, Asians, Blacks etc.  there.  They'd welcome you though.  They are almost all Limbaugh fans.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oriental Jews still practice their old Semitic traditions, dude!
> 
> European Jews were forbidden to do this, and they whined and called it "Anti-Semitism".
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of them pinko commie Arabists? If so, StormFront is three doors down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, at Stormfront they string up communists and socialists.  They are more hated than Jews, Arabs, Asians, Blacks etc.  there.  They'd welcome you though.  They are almost all Limbaugh fans.
Click to expand...

Now, don't you feel all intimidated and such now, Hoss?


----------



## montelatici

Kondor3 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of them pinko commie Arabists? If so, StormFront is three doors down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, at Stormfront they string up communists and socialists.  They are more hated than Jews, Arabs, Asians, Blacks etc.  there.  They'd welcome you though.  They are almost all Limbaugh fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, don't you feel all intimidated and such now, Hoss?
Click to expand...


Why should he feel intimidated?  He would agree with 100% of what the Stormfront posters agree on except for his support of Israel/Jews.


----------



## Statistikhengst

montelatici said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, at Stormfront they string up communists and socialists.  They are more hated than Jews, Arabs, Asians, Blacks etc.  there.  They'd welcome you though.  They are almost all Limbaugh fans.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, don't you feel all intimidated and such now, Hoss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should he feel intimidated?  He would agree with 100% of what the Stormfront posters agree on except for his support of Israel/Jews.
Click to expand...



Oh that is highly unlikely. Hossfly is a man of values and ethics and he, like me, would rather spit and die than be in the company of Nazis like you, Cazzo piccolo.


----------



## montelatici

Statistikhengst said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, don't you feel all intimidated and such now, Hoss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he feel intimidated?  He would agree with 100% of what the Stormfront posters agree on except for his support of Israel/Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that is highly unlikely. Hossfly is a man of values and ethics and he, like me, would rather spit and die than be in the company of Nazis like you, Cazzo piccolo.
Click to expand...


I don't post there, I am a commie pinko in Hoss's book.  I would be banned immediately there.  Limbaugh is one of the most popular pundits at Stormfront, Hoss has said he is a "dittohead", so there you go.


----------



## Statistikhengst

montelatici said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he feel intimidated?  He would agree with 100% of what the Stormfront posters agree on except for his support of Israel/Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that is highly unlikely. Hossfly is a man of values and ethics and he, like me, would rather spit and die than be in the company of Nazis like you, Cazzo piccolo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't post there, I am a commie pinko in Hoss's book.  I would be banned immediately there.  Limbaugh is one of the most popular pundits at Stormfront, Hoss has said he is a "dittohead", so there you go.
Click to expand...



Ok, so now we have incontrovertible proof that you really ARE as stupid as we thought.

Thank you for playing.


----------



## Sally

Statistikhengst said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, don't you feel all intimidated and such now, Hoss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he feel intimidated?  He would agree with 100% of what the Stormfront posters agree on except for his support of Israel/Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that is highly unlikely. Hossfly is a man of values and ethics and he, like me, would rather spit and die than be in the company of Nazis like you, Cazzo piccolo.
Click to expand...


You're right, Hossfly is honorable unlike those at Stormfront who nowadays have joined up with the Muslims to demonize the Jews.   There was an article in the Los Angeles Times back a few years.  The reporter was in Germany writing about how the Palestinians and the NeoNazis there were protesting against the Jews in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.  If anyone wants to, they can request the article from the Los Angeles Times Archives.  It was entitled "East Meets West."


----------



## montelatici

Statistikhengst said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that is highly unlikely. Hossfly is a man of values and ethics and he, like me, would rather spit and die than be in the company of Nazis like you, Cazzo piccolo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post there, I am a commie pinko in Hoss's book.  I would be banned immediately there.  Limbaugh is one of the most popular pundits at Stormfront, Hoss has said he is a "dittohead", so there you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so now we have incontrovertible proof that you really ARE as stupid as we thought.
> 
> Thank you for playing.
Click to expand...


Ahh, that sort retort shows a great deal of intelligence.  Just a quick question, is that the royal "we"?


----------



## Billo_Really

P F Tinmore said:


> So, you think that the Palestinian's resistance to Israel's aggression is the problem not Israel's aggression itself?


Bingo!  That is the whole problem in a nutshell. 

It is also the basis for all the UN Resolutions against Israel.

But the pro-Israeli crowd, wants people to believe this has something to do with "Jew hate".  That the "only" reason people are against Israel, is because of the way they worship and what name they call God, NOT Israeli aggression in the ME.

Fortunately, not a single country on the planet, buys their bullshit.


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that the Palestinian's resistance to Israel's aggression is the problem not Israel's aggression itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!  That is the whole problem in a nutshell.
> 
> It is also the basis for all the UN Resolutions against Israel.
> 
> But the pro-Israeli crowd, wants people to believe this has something to do with "Jew hate".  That the "only" reason people are against Israel, is because of the way they worship and what name they call God, NOT Israeli aggression in the ME.
> 
> Fortunately, not a single country on the planet, buys their bullshit.
Click to expand...


Billy, do you actually believe that everyone here buys your b.s.  If you really cared about the Arabs, you certainly would be condemning the actions of those who are busy murdering them in the rest of the Middle East.  You don't seem to care about the Muslim Arabs nor do care about the Christians in these countries.  All your focus is on Israel and no other country in the Middle East when so much is happening there.  That tells everyone quite a lot about you.  

Naturally Billy would never think that the UN might be anti-Semitic and that is why you see all these resolutions when you don't see them against countries that really deserve them.


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that the Palestinian's resistance to Israel's aggression is the problem not Israel's aggression itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!  That is the whole problem in a nutshell.
> 
> It is also the basis for all the UN Resolutions against Israel.
> 
> But the pro-Israeli crowd, wants people to believe this has something to do with "Jew hate".  That the "only" reason people are against Israel, is because of the way they worship and what name they call God, NOT Israeli aggression in the ME.
> 
> Fortunately, not a single country on the planet, buys their bullshit.
Click to expand...

What aggression? I fail to see any by Israel.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> What aggression? I fail to see any by Israel.


That's because you don't want to see it.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What aggression? I fail to see any by Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't want to see it.
Click to expand...


You just described Tinmore concerning Palestinian aggression ...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What aggression? I fail to see any by Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't want to see it.
Click to expand...


And on your side, you will build any story up that you can TO see it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Billy, do you actually believe that everyone here buys your b.s.  If you really cared about the Arabs, you certainly would be condemning the actions of those who are busy murdering them in the rest of the Middle East.  You don't seem to care about the Muslim Arabs nor do care about the Christians in these countries.  All your focus is on Israel and no other country in the Middle East when so much is happening there.  That tells everyone quite a lot about you.


 I can't decide whether you preceding comments are retarded or sinister.  Because I've stated more than once, I don't give a shit about the arabs, yet you deliberately act like I haven't.  You are either, mentally retarded, or your agenda is much more sinister than that.




Sally said:


> Naturally Billy would never think that the UN might be anti-Semitic and that is why you see all these resolutions when you don't see them against countries that really deserve them.


You can't even name the resolutions you're referring to!  You wanna try, you *XXXXXXXXXXX*?  Go ahead *XXXXXXXXXXX*, name 3.  I'll wait.

Need more time?  You got it!

Couldn't come up with any?  I knew it!

The problem is, even though a *XXXXXXXXXXX*like you can't back up your psycho-bitch bullshit, I can!  


Let's take a look at a few UN resolutions in 2011...







I didn't see Israel anywhere in there.  But I did see a few of these country's that you claimed "deserve it".  

So what do you have to say to that, you stupid bitch?

But  hold on, I'm not done, with your yeast-infected ass...

Let's look at a few UN resolutions that ARE against Israel and see what's anti-Semitic about them...



> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1002
> November 7, 1956
> 
> 2. Calls once again upon Israel immediately to withdraw all its forces behind the armistice lines established by the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949;_


Nothing there about Jews.

Let's look at another one....



> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2443
> December 19, 1968
> 
> 
> Noting resolution I on respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories, adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights on 7 May 1968,4/ in which the Conference, inter alia:
> 
> (a) *Expressed its grave concern at the violation of human rights in Arab territories occupied by Israel*,
> 
> (b) Drew the attention of the Government of Israel to the grave consequences resulting from the disregard of fundamental freedoms and human rights in occupied territories,
> 
> (c) *Called upon the Government of Israel to desist forthwith from acts of destroying homes of the Arab civilian population inhabiting areas occupied by Israel *and to respect and implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 5/ in occupied territories,
> 
> (d) *Affirmed the inalienable rights of all inhabitants who have left their homes as a result of the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East to return home, resume their normal life*, recover their property and homes, and rejoin their families according to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,​ _


Nothing about Jews there...

Let's look at one more...




> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/61
> December 9, 1976
> 
> 2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories *in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions*;
> 
> 3. Reaffirms that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East *cannot be achieved without Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 *and the attainment by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, which are the basic prerequisites enabling all countries and peoples in the Middle East to live in peace;
> 
> 4. *Condemns all measures taken by Israel in the occupied territories to change the demographic and geographic character and institutional structure of these territories*;
> 
> 5. Requests once again all States to desist from supplying Israel with military and other forms of aid or any assistance which would enable it to consolidate its occupation or to exploit the natural resources of the occupied territories;_


Nothing anti-Semitic there.

In summary (and in response) to your bullshit conjecture and deliberate lies, I provided evidence that shows your comments to be full of shit.  

So shut your fucking mouth, *XXXXXXXXXXX*!


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> And on your side, you will build any story up that you can TO see it.


Care to give me an example of one of those "story's"?


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> You just described Tinmore concerning Palestinian aggression ...


It's not aggression, it's resistance.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just described Tinmore concerning Palestinian aggression ...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not aggression, it's resistance.
Click to expand...


Smashing the heads of jewish babies is not resistance.

It is murder.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that the Palestinian's resistance to Israel's aggression is the problem not Israel's aggression itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!  That is the whole problem in a nutshell.
> 
> It is also the basis for all the UN Resolutions against Israel.
> 
> But the pro-Israeli crowd, wants people to believe this has something to do with "Jew hate".  That the "only" reason people are against Israel, is because of the way they worship and what name they call God, NOT Israeli aggression in the ME.
> 
> Fortunately, not a single country on the planet, buys their bullshit.
Click to expand...


First of all, nobody gives a shit what the UN says. Ever.

Secondly, when are you giving your land back to the indians? Or are you another hypocrite like the tinman?


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> First of all, nobody gives a shit what the UN says. Ever.


That's like saying, you don't care what the rest (and majority) of the world thinks.





MrMax said:


> Secondly, when are you giving your land back to the indians?


How many times are you going to ask that question?

How many more times do I have to answer that?




MrMax said:


> Or are you another hypocrite like the tinman?


*Tinny's* not a hypocrite.


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> Smashing the heads of jewish babies is not resistance.
> 
> It is murder.


Well, that is.

But resisting Israeli aggression, is not.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, nobody gives a shit what the UN says. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying, you don't care what the rest (and majority) of the world thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, when are you giving your land back to the indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times are you going to ask that question?
> 
> How many more times do I have to answer that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you another hypocrite like the tinman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tinny's* not a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


The only time the US cares about what the UN says is when it's trying to get some countries to vote for one of their bogus invasions or attacks on other countries. The US also doesn't recognize the World Court.

Tinman's a hypocrite because he advocates the Jews returning land when he won't return his own land (for which he has even less claim to than the Jews do to theirs) to the indians. Kinda like you.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, nobody gives a shit what the UN says. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying, you don't care what the rest (and majority) of the world thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to ask that question?
> 
> How many more times do I have to answer that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you another hypocrite like the tinman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tinny's* not a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the US cares about what the UN says is when it's trying to get some countries to vote for one of their bogus invasions or attacks on other countries. The US also doesn't recognize the World Court.
> 
> Tinman's a hypocrite because he advocates the Jews returning land when he won't return his own land (for which he has even less claim to than the Jews do to theirs) to the indians. Kinda like you.
Click to expand...


ZioNazism like you (or how to treat the Goyim) , has not matured into a civilized theory, even to this day we obey the laws of god-fearing people who now understand that we are all in this spaceship earth, people like your right wing Neo-Zionism preach war and separatism the bane of humanity.


----------



## toastman

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billy, do you actually believe that everyone here buys your b.s.  If you really cared about the Arabs, you certainly would be condemning the actions of those who are busy murdering them in the rest of the Middle East.  You don't seem to care about the Muslim Arabs nor do care about the Christians in these countries.  All your focus is on Israel and no other country in the Middle East when so much is happening there.  That tells everyone quite a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide whether you preceding comments are retarded or sinister.  Because I've stated more than once, I don't give a shit about the arabs, yet you deliberately act like I haven't.  You are either, mentally retarded, or your agenda is much more sinister than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally Billy would never think that the UN might be anti-Semitic and that is why you see all these resolutions when you don't see them against countries that really deserve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't even name the resolutions you're referring to!  You wanna try, you fucking whore?  Go ahead slut, name 3.  I'll wait.
> 
> Need more time?  You got it!
> 
> Couldn't come up with any?  I knew it!
> 
> The problem is, even though a skank like you can't back up your psycho-bitch bullshit, I can!
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at a few UN resolutions in 2011...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see Israel anywhere in there.  But I did see a few of these country's that you claimed "deserve it".
> 
> So what do you have to say to that, you stupid bitch?
> 
> But  hold on, I'm not done, with your yeast-infected ass...
> 
> Let's look at a few UN resolutions that ARE against Israel and see what's anti-Semitic about them...
> 
> Nothing there about Jews.
> 
> Let's look at another one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2443
> December 19, 1968
> 
> 
> Noting resolution I on respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories, adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights on 7 May 1968,4/ in which the Conference, inter alia:
> 
> (a) *Expressed its grave concern at the violation of human rights in Arab territories occupied by Israel*,
> 
> (b) Drew the attention of the Government of Israel to the grave consequences resulting from the disregard of fundamental freedoms and human rights in occupied territories,
> 
> (c) *Called upon the Government of Israel to desist forthwith from acts of destroying homes of the Arab civilian population inhabiting areas occupied by Israel *and to respect and implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 5/ in occupied territories,
> 
> (d) *Affirmed the inalienable rights of all inhabitants who have left their homes as a result of the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East to return home, resume their normal life*, recover their property and homes, and rejoin their families according to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,​ _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about Jews there...
> 
> Let's look at one more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/61
> December 9, 1976
> 
> 2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories *in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions*;
> 
> 3. Reaffirms that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East *cannot be achieved without Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 *and the attainment by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, which are the basic prerequisites enabling all countries and peoples in the Middle East to live in peace;
> 
> 4. *Condemns all measures taken by Israel in the occupied territories to change the demographic and geographic character and institutional structure of these territories*;
> 
> 5. Requests once again all States to desist from supplying Israel with military and other forms of aid or any assistance which would enable it to consolidate its occupation or to exploit the natural resources of the occupied territories;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing anti-Semitic there.
> 
> In summary (and in response) to your bullshit conjecture and deliberate lies, I provided evidence that shows your comments to be full of shit.
> 
> So shut your fucking mouth, you sick, twisted whore!
Click to expand...


Mentally retarded
Slut
Skank
Psycho bitch
Yeast infected ass
Twisted whore.

These are the terms you used to describe Sally in this one post Billo.

You need anger management, PMS Billo.
If you get this pissed off at someone on a freaking message board, I wonder how you act in real like with people you are debating with.
Very very disgusting behaviour Billo.


----------



## Coyote

*According to the rules: Foul language (profanity) will be loosely tolerated and at the moderators discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub-forum.

It's getting a wee bit over the top, let's tone it down, a little less focus on member's intimate body parts and more focus on the topic.

A little foul language goes a long ways - too much ruins the point being made.*


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smashing the heads of jewish babies is not resistance.
> 
> It is murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is.
> 
> But resisting Israeli aggression, is not.
Click to expand...



So, there is at least a ray of hope for you.


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billy, do you actually believe that everyone here buys your b.s.  If you really cared about the Arabs, you certainly would be condemning the actions of those who are busy murdering them in the rest of the Middle East.  You don't seem to care about the Muslim Arabs nor do care about the Christians in these countries.  All your focus is on Israel and no other country in the Middle East when so much is happening there.  That tells everyone quite a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide whether you preceding comments are retarded or sinister.  Because I've stated more than once, I don't give a shit about the arabs, yet you deliberately act like I haven't.  You are either, mentally retarded, or your agenda is much more sinister than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally Billy would never think that the UN might be anti-Semitic and that is why you see all these resolutions when you don't see them against countries that really deserve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't even name the resolutions you're referring to!  You wanna try, you *XXXXXXXXXXX*?  Go ahead *XXXXXXXXXXX*, name 3.  I'll wait.
> 
> Need more time?  You got it!
> 
> Couldn't come up with any?  I knew it!
> 
> The problem is, even though a *XXXXXXXXXXX*like you can't back up your psycho-bitch bullshit, I can!
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at a few UN resolutions in 2011...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see Israel anywhere in there.  But I did see a few of these country's that you claimed "deserve it".
> 
> So what do you have to say to that, you stupid bitch?
> 
> But  hold on, I'm not done, with your yeast-infected ass...
> 
> Let's look at a few UN resolutions that ARE against Israel and see what's anti-Semitic about them...
> 
> Nothing there about Jews.
> 
> Let's look at another one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2443
> December 19, 1968
> 
> 
> Noting resolution I on respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories, adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights on 7 May 1968,4/ in which the Conference, inter alia:
> 
> (a) *Expressed its grave concern at the violation of human rights in Arab territories occupied by Israel*,
> 
> (b) Drew the attention of the Government of Israel to the grave consequences resulting from the disregard of fundamental freedoms and human rights in occupied territories,
> 
> (c) *Called upon the Government of Israel to desist forthwith from acts of destroying homes of the Arab civilian population inhabiting areas occupied by Israel *and to respect and implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 5/ in occupied territories,
> 
> (d) *Affirmed the inalienable rights of all inhabitants who have left their homes as a result of the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East to return home, resume their normal life*, recover their property and homes, and rejoin their families according to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,​ _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about Jews there...
> 
> Let's look at one more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/61
> December 9, 1976
> 
> 2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories *in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions*;
> 
> 3. Reaffirms that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East *cannot be achieved without Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 *and the attainment by the Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, which are the basic prerequisites enabling all countries and peoples in the Middle East to live in peace;
> 
> 4. *Condemns all measures taken by Israel in the occupied territories to change the demographic and geographic character and institutional structure of these territories*;
> 
> 5. Requests once again all States to desist from supplying Israel with military and other forms of aid or any assistance which would enable it to consolidate its occupation or to exploit the natural resources of the occupied territories;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing anti-Semitic there.
> 
> In summary (and in response) to your bullshit conjecture and deliberate lies, I provided evidence that shows your comments to be full of shit.
> 
> So shut your fucking mouth, *XXXXXXXXXXX*!
Click to expand...


45 resolutions and you pick a section of one month without any?
Why are you baiting for a fight?  When almost 50% of all resolutions are related to Israel, and we well know there are human right violations and brutality in many part of the world and war in other countries, there is an obvious bias.  They are trying to hold Israel to a different standard and when found flawed even slightly Israel is condemned in some way.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Mentally retarded
> Slut
> Skank
> Psycho bitch
> Yeast infected ass
> Twisted whore.
> 
> These are the terms you used to describe Sally in this one post Billo.
> 
> You need anger management, PMS Billo.
> If you get this pissed off at someone on a freaking message board, I wonder how you act in real like with people you are debating with.
> Very very disgusting behaviour Billo.


Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?

I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!

So I let her have it!


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mentally retarded
> Slut
> Skank
> Psycho bitch
> Yeast infected ass
> Twisted whore.
> 
> These are the terms you used to describe Sally in this one post Billo.
> 
> You need anger management, PMS Billo.
> If you get this pissed off at someone on a freaking message board, I wonder how you act in real like with people you are debating with.
> Very very disgusting behaviour Billo.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?
> 
> I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!
> 
> So I let her have it!
Click to expand...


But, Billy the Pimp in Long beach always sounds like he is reading the same script over and over and over.  He cares nothing for all those innocent people murdered in the other Middle East countries as long as he can post once against his script against Israel (like any intellitent person is actually going to think he cares about the Arabs).

By the way, Toastman, I once read that someone who has to resort to profanities has a very limited vocabulary.


----------



## pbel

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mentally retarded
> Slut
> Skank
> Psycho bitch
> Yeast infected ass
> Twisted whore.
> 
> These are the terms you used to describe Sally in this one post Billo.
> 
> You need anger management, PMS Billo.
> If you get this pissed off at someone on a freaking message board, I wonder how you act in real like with people you are debating with.
> Very very disgusting behaviour Billo.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?
> 
> I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!
> 
> So I let her have it!
Click to expand...


Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mentally retarded
> Slut
> Skank
> Psycho bitch
> Yeast infected ass
> Twisted whore.
> 
> These are the terms you used to describe Sally in this one post Billo.
> 
> You need anger management, PMS Billo.
> If you get this pissed off at someone on a freaking message board, I wonder how you act in real like with people you are debating with.
> Very very disgusting behaviour Billo.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?
> 
> I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!
> 
> So I let her have it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
Click to expand...

As opposed to carpet kissing women who aren't allowed to use the internet?


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just described Tinmore concerning Palestinian aggression ...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not aggression, it's resistance.
Click to expand...


So you'd be ok with the American Indians car bombing your neighbourhood?


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?
> 
> I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!
> 
> So I let her have it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As opposed to carpet kissing women who aren't allowed to use the internet?
Click to expand...


Amazing how similar Orthodox Judaism is to Islam, they too segregate their women at worship.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to carpet kissing women who aren't allowed to use the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how similar Orthodox Judaism is to Islam, they too segregate their women at worship.
Click to expand...

At least the Jews don't make theirs wear head-to-toe burlap bags.

The vestigial misogynistic observances still embedded within Orthodox Judaism, versus the living, breathing, uber-oppressive misogynistic strictures imposed upon women within Islam, are like the thickness of a piece of paper (in the case of the Jews) compared to a ten-story building (in the case of the Muslims).


----------



## Sweet_Caroline




----------



## MrMax

Kondor3 said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to carpet kissing women who aren't allowed to use the internet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how similar Orthodox Judaism is to Islam, they too segregate their women at worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least the Jews don't make theirs wear head-to-toe burlap bags.
Click to expand...


Hey, if I was married to a couple of ugly arab women, I'd be ashamed as well.


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> So you'd be ok with the American Indians car bombing your neighbourhood?


If I forced myself onto a reservation, or built a wall through one of their casino's, I wouldn't be expecting a "thank you".


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> But, Billy the Pimp in Long beach always sounds like he is reading the same script over and over and over.  He cares nothing for all those innocent people murdered in the other Middle East countries as long as he can post once against his script against Israel (like any intellitent person is actually going to think he cares about the Arabs).
> 
> By the way, Toastman, I once read that someone who has to resort to profanities has a very limited vocabulary.


How would you know?

You post the same garbage (almost verbatim) every time out.


----------



## Hossfly

Sweet_Caroline said:


>


G.I.G.O. is the theme here.


----------



## Kondor3

I just love it, when some of these Muslim-apologists try equating the residual female-focused repressive practices of Religion A or B with those ubiquitous within the domains of Islam.

They get their asses kicked every time.

The funny thing about it is, they keep coming back for more.

Dinner AND a show.


----------



## MrMax

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be ok with the American Indians car bombing your neighbourhood?
> 
> 
> 
> If I forced myself onto a reservation, or built a wall through one of their casino's, I wouldn't be expecting a "thank you".
Click to expand...


So as long as the Pals stay on their reservations, everything should be fine?


----------



## Billo_Really

MrMax said:


> So as long as the Pals stay on their reservations, everything should be fine?


As long as the Israeli's stay on their reservation, everything should be fine.

The Pals aren't the ones occupying land that isn't theirs.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as the Pals stay on their reservations, everything should be fine?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the Israeli's stay on their reservation, everything should be fine.
> 
> The Pals aren't the ones occupying land that isn't theirs.
Click to expand...

Don't look now, but the Israelis are holding the Title Deed now.

Don't like that? Take it back. Or try. Please.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Don't look now, but the Israelis are holding the Title Deed now.
> 
> Don't like that? Take it back. Or try. Please.


You can't get anymore un-American than that!


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mentally retarded
> Slut
> Skank
> Psycho bitch
> Yeast infected ass
> Twisted whore.
> 
> These are the terms you used to describe Sally in this one post Billo.
> 
> You need anger management, PMS Billo.
> If you get this pissed off at someone on a freaking message board, I wonder how you act in real like with people you are debating with.
> Very very disgusting behaviour Billo.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?
> 
> I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!
> 
> So I let her have it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
Click to expand...


And Pbel is so looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.  He has nothing to say avout the Arab proppaganda which is among the best in the world, and all he wants to do is focus on Israel (of course because Jews are involved)  no matter how many bodies -- both Muslims and Christians -- are piling up in the rest of the Middle East, put there by his newfound friends..  Way to go, you ridiculous man.

It certainly looks like one Dhimmi is teaming up with another Dhimmi.   I wonder what these two Dhimmis would be saying if by chance instead of Israel being governed by Jews, that country was governed by Hindus or Buddhists.  Would they both be gettting on their high horse about that tiny piece of land then?  Probably not.


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, Billy the Pimp in Long beach always sounds like he is reading the same script over and over and over.  He cares nothing for all those innocent people murdered in the other Middle East countries as long as he can post once against his script against Israel (like any intellitent person is actually going to think he cares about the Arabs).
> 
> By the way, Toastman, I once read that someone who has to resort to profanities has a very limited vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know?
> 
> You post the same garbage (almost verbatim) every time out.
Click to expand...


Come on, Billy, you don't think people are smart enough to see that your posts are like you are copying them from the same script.   You are really one big joke.  However, keep throwing out your profanities so we can become aware once again of your limited vocabulary


----------



## Sally

MrMax said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be ok with the American Indians car bombing your neighbourhood?
> 
> 
> 
> If I forced myself onto a reservation, or built a wall through one of their casino's, I wouldn't be expecting a "thank you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as long as the Pals stay on their reservations, everything should be fine?
Click to expand...


Actually, Mr. Max, years ago there were several Native American posters (such as a Navajo from the Dene tribe in Sedona, Arizona) who were all for Israel.  They realized that Israelis loved the land as they do.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look now, but the Israelis are holding the Title Deed now.
> 
> Don't like that? Take it back. Or try. Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't get anymore *un-American* than that!
Click to expand...

What a crock of shit...

Your state was ceded to the United States by the Mexican government...

As part of a settlement where we invaded and conquered another country, then changed Title Deed for California at the point of a musket and bayonet...

Happens all the time, throughout history, child...

Come back when you've managed to shed the blue Smurf skin...


----------



## aris2chat

Sally said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I forced myself onto a reservation, or built a wall through one of their casino's, I wouldn't be expecting a "thank you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as the Pals stay on their reservations, everything should be fine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Mr. Max, years ago there were several Native American posters (such as a Navajo from the Dene tribe in Sedona, Arizona) who were all for Israel.  They realized that Israelis loved the land as they do.
Click to expand...



another group of people who are for Israel, the palestinian, and against the BDS

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2GCl9MX8qI#t=550&hd=1[/ame]


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see her post to me?  The one I was responding to?
> 
> I found that as equally as offensive!  She does that constantly and no one is going to do shit about it!
> 
> So I let her have it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Pbel is so looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.  He has nothing to say avout the Arab proppaganda which is among the best in the world, and all he wants to do is focus on Israel (of course because Jews are involved)  no matter how many bodies -- both Muslims and Christians -- are piling up in the rest of the Middle East, put there by his newfound friends..  Way to go, you ridiculous man.
> 
> It certainly looks like one Dhimmi is teaming up with another Dhimmi.   I wonder what these two Dhimmis would be saying if by chance instead of Israel being governed by Jews, that country was governed by Hindus or Buddhists.  Would they both be gettting on their high horse about that tiny piece of land then?  Probably not.
Click to expand...


Look airhead, I'm looking to keep Americans from dying for Israeli inspired conflicts like Iraq, and indirectly Afghanistan and now pushing for Iran. People like you are more concerned with Israel's welfare rather than America which allowed you to prosper. The Pollard Complex.

We all can hear what the Jihadists are saying and their reasoning for the hate towards America, Israel is killing Muslims like all previous Western Colonial Powers.

America needs Campaign Finance Reform to reign in AIPAC money influence and take back our government from the military industrial complex.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> What a crock of shit...
> 
> Your state was ceded to the United States by the Mexican government...
> 
> As part of a settlement where we invaded and conquered another country, then changed Title Deed for California at the point of a musket and bayonet...
> 
> Happens all the time, throughout history, child...
> 
> Come back when you've managed to shed the blue Smurf skin...


This country is based on the rule of law.

Being an American means you respect the law.

Ever since WWII ended, holding onto land seized in a war, has been ruled illegal.

This country also co-authored the Nuremberg Principles.

Being against any of the above, is un-American.

_Prosecution rests..._


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Pbel is so looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.  He has nothing to say avout the Arab proppaganda which is among the best in the world, and all he wants to do is focus on Israel (of course because Jews are involved)  no matter how many bodies -- both Muslims and Christians -- are piling up in the rest of the Middle East, put there by his newfound friends..  Way to go, you ridiculous man.
> 
> It certainly looks like one Dhimmi is teaming up with another Dhimmi.   I wonder what these two Dhimmis would be saying if by chance instead of Israel being governed by Jews, that country was governed by Hindus or Buddhists.  Would they both be gettting on their high horse about that tiny piece of land then?  Probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look airhead, I'm looking to keep Americans from dying for Israeli inspired conflicts like Iraq, and indirectly Afghanistan and now pushing for Iran. People like you are more concerned with Israel's welfare rather than America which allowed you to prosper. The Pollard Complex.
> 
> We all can hear what the Jihadists are saying and their reasoning for the hate towards America, Israel is killing Muslims like all previous Western Colonial Powers.
> 
> America needs Campaign Finance Reform to reign in AIPAC money influence and take back our government from the military industrial complex.
Click to expand...


Actually, Islam's stated goal is to take over the world, and at the very least, to re-establish their old caliphate that stretches into Spain. So it comes down to, do you want to fight them here or there? I prefer there.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sally said:


> Actually, Mr. Max, years ago there were several Native American posters (such as a Navajo from the Dene tribe in Sedona, Arizona) who were all for Israel.  They realized that Israelis loved the land as they do.


Thou shall not covet thy neighbors land.


----------



## Kondor3

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo, Sally the scallywag has a very difficult job of propagandizing for the ZioNazi State of Israel...she try's real hard but her capacity for creativity is non-existent, so she naturally sounds like an dumb airhead blowing hot air from both ends....have pity, try to ignore her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Pbel is so looking forward to becoming a Dhimmi.  He has nothing to say avout the Arab proppaganda which is among the best in the world, and all he wants to do is focus on Israel (of course because Jews are involved)  no matter how many bodies -- both Muslims and Christians -- are piling up in the rest of the Middle East, put there by his newfound friends..  Way to go, you ridiculous man.
> 
> It certainly looks like one Dhimmi is teaming up with another Dhimmi.   I wonder what these two Dhimmis would be saying if by chance instead of Israel being governed by Jews, that country was governed by Hindus or Buddhists.  Would they both be gettting on their high horse about that tiny piece of land then?  Probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look airhead, I'm looking to keep Americans from dying for Israeli inspired conflicts like Iraq, and indirectly Afghanistan and now pushing for Iran...
Click to expand...

Iraq: what makes you think that this was inspired by the Israelis?

Afghanistan: purely a reaction to 9-11; going after al-Qaeda and their nasty Taliban hosts. Israel was only one of several reasons cited for the attacks.

Iran: we've hated each others guts since the 1950s, or 1970s at the latest. Israel might be eager for us to take-on Iran, but we've got plenty of self-motivation re: that as well.



> People like you are more concerned with Israel's welfare rather than America which allowed you to prosper. The Pollard Complex...


Hardly.

There are VAST numbers of Americans who are pro-Israel, who are committed to supporting her, while keeping their own country (the United States) uppermost in their hearts and minds and loyalties and well-being.

It's just that others have a different perception of what can and should be done in connection with that well-being, than you do.



> We all can hear what the Jihadists are saying and their reasoning for the hate towards America, Israel is killing Muslims like all previous Western Colonial Powers.


We should not allow Muslim Militants to dictate to the United States, whom we may befriend, and whom we may ally with, and whom we may not.

Militant Islam is becoming dangerous, for underlying reasons that have little to do with Israel-Palestine, and an ongoing show of strength is required now, in our dealings with it.

Any substantive change in alliances and friendships and policy will be seen as caving-in to the demands of Muslim Militants; showing weakness where a show of strength is indicated.

No thank you.

This is good a place-and-time to begin to take a stand against it, as any.



> America needs Campaign Finance Reform to reign in AIPAC money influence and take back our government from the military industrial complex.


America needs such reforms for a great many reasons.

AIPAC is far down the list of concerns.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of shit...
> 
> Your state was ceded to the United States by the Mexican government...
> 
> As part of a settlement where we invaded and conquered another country, then changed Title Deed for California at the point of a musket and bayonet...
> 
> Happens all the time, throughout history, child...
> 
> Come back when you've managed to shed the blue Smurf skin...
> 
> 
> 
> This country is based on the rule of law.
> 
> Being an American means you respect the law.
> 
> Ever since WWII ended, holding onto land seized in a war, has been ruled illegal.
> 
> This country also co-authored the Nuremberg Principles.
> 
> Being against any of the above, is un-American.
> 
> _Prosecution rests..._
Click to expand...

You tell 'em, Smurfette...


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Iran: we've hated each others guts since the 1950s, or 1970s at the latest. Israel might be eager for us to take-on Iran, but we've got plenty of self-motivation re: that as well.


You don't know why Iran hates us?

_That figures!_


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> You tell 'em, Smurfette...


I just did.  That's why you responded like a 5 year old.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell 'em, Smurfette...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.  That's why you responded like a 5 year old.
Click to expand...

Anybody else feel like tutoring _The Child_ today?

I've got stuff to do today.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Kondor3 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell 'em, Smurfette...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.  That's why you responded like a 5 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody else feel like tutoring _The Child_ today?
> 
> I've got stuff to do today.
Click to expand...




Nah, life is too short for this kind of silly shit.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, Billy the Pimp in Long beach always sounds like he is reading the same script over and over and over.  He cares nothing for all those innocent people murdered in the other Middle East countries as long as he can post once against his script against Israel (like any intellitent person is actually going to think he cares about the Arabs).
> 
> By the way, Toastman, I once read that someone who has to resort to profanities has a very limited vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know?
> 
> You post the same garbage (almost verbatim) every time out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, Billy, you don't think people are smart enough to see that your posts are like you are copying them from the same script.   You are really one big joke.  However, keep throwing out your profanities so we can become aware once again of your limited vocabulary
Click to expand...


It really is incredulous that you accuse anyone of repeating scripts. You have been using the very words for years and probably have them cataloged.


----------



## Sally

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know?
> 
> You post the same garbage (almost verbatim) every time out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Billy, you don't think people are smart enough to see that your posts are like you are copying them from the same script.   You are really one big joke.  However, keep throwing out your profanities so we can become aware once again of your limited vocabulary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is incredulous that you accuse anyone of repeating scripts. You have been using the very words for years and probably have them cataloged.
Click to expand...


I have tried to post different articles, mostly up-to-date news.  I haven't been like you who for years and years pulled out your coloring box plus made up lousy poems about posters, some of whom hadn't posted in a long time.   The readers here should have seen your operating.  You would have given them a good laugh, Pbel, to see such a juvenile character.


----------



## pbel

Sally said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Billy, you don't think people are smart enough to see that your posts are like you are copying them from the same script.   You are really one big joke.  However, keep throwing out your profanities so we can become aware once again of your limited vocabulary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is incredulous that you accuse anyone of repeating scripts. You have been using the very words for years and probably have them cataloged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have tried to post different articles, mostly up-to-date news.  I haven't been like you who for years and years pulled out your coloring box plus made up lousy poems about posters, some of whom hadn't posted in a long time.   The readers here should have seen your operating.  You would have given them a good laugh, Pbel, to see such a juvenile character.
Click to expand...


Yea Sally Scally-wag, you give us a good laugh too You're always admonish to care for the deaths Sudan or Timbuktu, yet you probably donate money to Israel which has  IDF soldiers kill Palestinian children for sport. 

You Sally are the IDF....


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is incredulous that you accuse anyone of repeating scripts. You have been using the very words for years and probably have them cataloged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to post different articles, mostly up-to-date news.  I haven't been like you who for years and years pulled out your coloring box plus made up lousy poems about posters, some of whom hadn't posted in a long time.   The readers here should have seen your operating.  You would have given them a good laugh, Pbel, to see such a juvenile character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea Sally Scally-wag, you give us a good laugh too You're always admonish to care for the deaths Sudan or Timbuktu, yet you probably donate money to Israel which has  IDF soldiers kill Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> You Sally are the IDF....
Click to expand...


Kill Palestinian children for sport?? 

I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??

You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to post different articles, mostly up-to-date news.  I haven't been like you who for years and years pulled out your coloring box plus made up lousy poems about posters, some of whom hadn't posted in a long time.   The readers here should have seen your operating.  You would have given them a good laugh, Pbel, to see such a juvenile character.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea Sally Scally-wag, you give us a good laugh too You're always admonish to care for the deaths Sudan or Timbuktu, yet you probably donate money to Israel which has  IDF soldiers kill Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> You Sally are the IDF....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.
Click to expand...




Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show

Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show

Allison Deger on November 24, 2013 75 






Facebook


Twitter


Reddit


Google


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.


Here's the IDF you refuse to see!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3DIrXd33SI]Video Israel Doesn't Want You to See - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th-7w1qkalg]RT Israel Trophy Kill Palestinians - Public Committee Against Torture Israel - Louis Frankenthaler - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Billo_Really

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMiX8l7mTo]Watch "God's Chosen" kick women and children out of their homes to live on the streets - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## montelatici

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to post different articles, mostly up-to-date news.  I haven't been like you who for years and years pulled out your coloring box plus made up lousy poems about posters, some of whom hadn't posted in a long time.   The readers here should have seen your operating.  You would have given them a good laugh, Pbel, to see such a juvenile character.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea Sally Scally-wag, you give us a good laugh too You're always admonish to care for the deaths Sudan or Timbuktu, yet you probably donate money to Israel which has  IDF soldiers kill Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> You Sally are the IDF....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.
Click to expand...


*"Kill Palestinian children for sport??"*

"Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show"

Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea Sally Scally-wag, you give us a good laugh too You're always admonish to care for the deaths Sudan or Timbuktu, yet you probably donate money to Israel which has  IDF soldiers kill Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> You Sally are the IDF....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Allison Deger on November 24, 2013 75
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook
> 
> 
> Twitter
> 
> 
> Reddit
> 
> 
> Google
Click to expand...


Very feeble attempt at justifying your previous claim Peebel.
You think all soldiers are like that? 

Read what you wrote again, and try and make yourself believe it.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Allison Deger on November 24, 2013 75
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook
> 
> 
> Twitter
> 
> 
> Reddit
> 
> 
> Google
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very feeble attempt at justifying your previous claim Peebel.
> You think all soldiers are like that?
> 
> Read what you wrote again, and try and make yourself believe it.
Click to expand...


Do you notice Dr. Weiner that you whine a lot when anyone whines about Israel?

Also, did you notice other posters plastering posts and videos supporting my claim?

Whine on!


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea Sally Scally-wag, you give us a good laugh too You're always admonish to care for the deaths Sudan or Timbuktu, yet you probably donate money to Israel which has  IDF soldiers kill Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> You Sally are the IDF....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Kill Palestinian children for sport??"*
> 
> "Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show"
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
Click to expand...


That's your brethren's shtick, Haniya.  How many thousands of innocent children have  your brethren killed in the Middle East this past year?  How many have they killed in the Muslim world in general?   Gee, this must be the iranian gang's turn posting.  Didn't they always use that silly Mondoweiss site.  Say I wonder where their hostess is -- tied in a rocking chair and being like Norman Bate's mother or undergoing electroshock therapy.


----------



## Sally

Billo_Really said:


> Watch "God's Chosen" kick women and children out of their homes to live on the streets - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Jew Settlers Stoning Palestine Christian Children walking to school - YouTube



Strange how Billy doesn't seem concerned with the Muslims shooting Catholic children in the Middle East.  I guess if the Jews are not involved, Billy could care less about how many Catholic children are murdered or wounded.  I would think that someone who several times has claimed he got a Catholic school education would be concerned with the Catholic school children in the other Middle East countries.


----------



## toastman

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Allison Deger on November 24, 2013 75
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facebook
> 
> 
> Twitter
> 
> 
> Reddit
> 
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very feeble attempt at justifying your previous claim Peebel.
> You think all soldiers are like that?
> 
> Read what you wrote again, and try and make yourself believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice Dr. Weiner that you whine a lot when anyone whines about Israel?
> 
> Also, did you notice other posters plastering posts and videos supporting my claim?
> 
> Whine on!
Click to expand...


So whenever I try to counter something that someone says, THAT'S whining?
Get real Tinmore.

You said Israel has the IDF shoot Palestinian children for sport. 
I know you're incredibly stupid and arrogant and.. Well I could go on, but I also know you're not stupid enough to believe what you wrote about the IDF.
Or maybe you are??

Oh, and lastly, none of the posts above proved your bullshit lie. 
You wreak of a Nazi.

Now go whine to someone about how people love Israel and talk about Jews in this forum  haha. 
That was a golden comment Pbel, thanks for that!


----------



## toastman

Sally said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kill Palestinian children for sport??
> 
> I've said this before to you Pbel, you can't expect to be taken seriously with garbage like this. You know nothing about the IDF.
> Are you sure it isn't Hamas that encourages Palestinians to attack civilians??
> 
> You hear that noise Pbel? That's the sound of your credibility getting flushed down the toilet.
> But don't worry, it has Tinmores credibility is down there also to keep yours company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kill Palestinian children for sport??"*
> 
> "Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show"
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your brethren's shtick, Haniya.  How many thousands of innocent children have  your brethren killed in the Middle East this past year?  How many have they killed in the Muslim world in general?   Gee, this must be the iranian gang's turn posting.  Didn't they always use that silly Mondoweiss site.  Say I wonder where their hostess is -- tied in a rocking chair and being like Norman Bate's mother or undergoing electroshock therapy.
Click to expand...


She shot Palestinian children for trophies? Where did she say that?


----------



## Statistikhengst

toastman said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Kill Palestinian children for sport??"*
> 
> "Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show"
> 
> Israeli soldier discusses killing Palestinian children on Ukrainian game show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your brethren's shtick, Haniya.  How many thousands of innocent children have  your brethren killed in the Middle East this past year?  How many have they killed in the Muslim world in general?   Gee, this must be the iranian gang's turn posting.  Didn't they always use that silly Mondoweiss site.  Say I wonder where their hostess is -- tied in a rocking chair and being like Norman Bate's mother or undergoing electroshock therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She shot Palestinian children for trophies? Where did she say that?
Click to expand...



She didn't. Here is the relevant quote:




> [We] had to fire, had to kill, because it was either they [get] us, or we  them. *I cant say Im proud of that. Its scary, especially when children run with Molotov cocktails, and they send children*, to turn the attention to them, little kid, barely walking, 3-4 years old.




Nope. No trophies. If anyone needs to be sent to jail for this, it's the fucking pali parents who hand their kids molotov cocktails. They are willingly sending their children into harm's way.

Spit.


----------



## pbel

toastman said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very feeble attempt at justifying your previous claim Peebel.
> You think all soldiers are like that?
> 
> Read what you wrote again, and try and make yourself believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice Dr. Weiner that you whine a lot when anyone whines about Israel?
> 
> Also, did you notice other posters plastering posts and videos supporting my claim?
> 
> Whine on!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whenever I try to counter something that someone says, THAT'S whining?
> Get real Tinmore.
> 
> You said Israel has the IDF shoot Palestinian children for sport.
> I know you're incredibly stupid and arrogant and.. Well I could go on, but I also know you're not stupid enough to believe what you wrote about the IDF.
> Or maybe you are??
> 
> Oh, and lastly, none of the posts above proved your bullshit lie. You wreak of a Nazi.
> 
> Now go whine to someone about how people love Israel and talk about Jews in this forum  haha.
> That was a golden comment Pbel, thanks for that!
Click to expand...


Show the lies with links child.


----------



## Kondor3

There is no shooting of Palestinian children for sport.

Certainly nothing 'official' nor 'officially condoned' nor 'widespread' in any sense of those words.

The 'accuser' here may be mistaking False Bravado served-up by someone obliged to shoot a minor (child) who got too close to a Fence Line or other Security Barrier, with suspicious materials; a case of the shooter deluding himself for the moment that it was no big deal or a game, to mask the pain and guilt and doubt associated with any such shooting, even a so-called 'righteous' one.

But, of course, the Muslim Apologist crowd around here (and their sources, elsewhere) will take that kind of scenario and warp and spin it until it's damned-near unrecognizable, in frantic attempts to politicize and capitalize upon any death of a minor-child, in connection with IDF operations.

It's horseshit - and we all know it - but we've gotta listen to the Fifth-Columnist crowd around here try to bullshit their way into the Facts Book, using highly questionable materials. Big surprise. Not.


----------



## MrMax

But why are Palestinians so fucking lousy at war? My grandmother fights better than they do. Are they all a bunch of pussies?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Kondor3 said:


> There is no shooting of Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> Certainly nothing 'official' nor 'officially condoned' nor 'widespread' in any sense of those words.
> 
> The 'accuser' here may be mistaking False Bravado served-up by someone obliged to shoot a minor (child) who got too close to a Fence Line or other Security Barrier, with suspicious materials; a case of the shooter deluding himself for the moment that it was no big deal or a game, to mask the pain and guilt and doubt associated with any such shooting, even a so-called 'righteous' one.
> 
> But, of course, the Muslim Apologist crowd around here (and their sources, elsewhere) will take that kind of scenario and warp and spin it until it's damned-near unrecognizable, in frantic attempts to politicize and capitalize upon any death of a minor-child, in connection with IDF operations.
> 
> It's horseshit - and we all know it - but we've gotta listen to the Fifth-Columnist crowd around here try to bullshit their way into the Facts Book, using highly questionable materials. Big surprise. Not.



And not backed up by the mortality statistics, either.


----------



## Billo_Really

This is how the IDF treats women and children.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VzPTCLOjYg]How Israeli Soldiers Treat Palestinian Women and Children! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> There is no shooting of Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> Certainly nothing 'official' nor 'officially condoned' nor 'widespread' in any sense of those words.
> 
> The 'accuser' here may be mistaking False Bravado served-up by someone obliged to shoot a minor (child) who got too close to a Fence Line or other Security Barrier, with suspicious materials; a case of the shooter deluding himself for the moment that it was no big deal or a game, to mask the pain and guilt and doubt associated with any such shooting, even a so-called 'righteous' one.
> 
> But, of course, the Muslim Apologist crowd around here (and their sources, elsewhere) will take that kind of scenario and warp and spin it until it's damned-near unrecognizable, in frantic attempts to politicize and capitalize upon any death of a minor-child, in connection with IDF operations.
> 
> It's horseshit - and we all know it - but we've gotta listen to the Fifth-Columnist crowd around here try to bullshit their way into the Facts Book, using highly questionable materials. Big surprise. Not.


All conjecture, with no links to back up anything you said.


----------



## Hossfly

aris2chat said:


> Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as the Pals stay on their reservations, everything should be fine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Mr. Max, years ago there were several Native American posters (such as a Navajo from the Dene tribe in Sedona, Arizona) who were all for Israel.  They realized that Israelis loved the land as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> another group of people who are for Israel, the palestinian, and against the BDS
> 
> [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2GCl9MX8qI#t=550&hd=1[/ame]
Click to expand...

Here's another group that is for Israel. @Lipush


The Israeli defense establishment this week decided to begin actively recruiting local Christians into the Israeli army.

The move comes after years of encouragement by the Nazareth-based Israeli Christian Recruitment Forum for young Arabic-speaking Christians to voluntarily join the IDF so as to better integrate into Israeli society.

Israel Today has repeatedly reported on the activities of the forum, whose leaders have long insisted that local Christians can only expect equal opportunity when they decided to take on equal responsibility


A 'New Chapter of Hope Between Jews and Christians' in Israel - Israel Today | Israel News


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> This is how the IDF treats women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> How Israeli Soldiers Treat Palestinian Women and Children! - YouTube


A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?


----------



## Hossfly

Billo_Really said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no shooting of Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> Certainly nothing 'official' nor 'officially condoned' nor 'widespread' in any sense of those words.
> 
> The 'accuser' here may be mistaking False Bravado served-up by someone obliged to shoot a minor (child) who got too close to a Fence Line or other Security Barrier, with suspicious materials; a case of the shooter deluding himself for the moment that it was no big deal or a game, to mask the pain and guilt and doubt associated with any such shooting, even a so-called 'righteous' one.
> 
> But, of course, the Muslim Apologist crowd around here (and their sources, elsewhere) will take that kind of scenario and warp and spin it until it's damned-near unrecognizable, in frantic attempts to politicize and capitalize upon any death of a minor-child, in connection with IDF operations.
> 
> It's horseshit - and we all know it - but we've gotta listen to the Fifth-Columnist crowd around here try to bullshit their way into the Facts Book, using highly questionable materials. Big surprise. Not.
> 
> 
> 
> All conjecture, with no links to back up anything you said.
Click to expand...

What is it about links with You People? People make conversation and conjecture, you demand a link. People provide a link, you either:   1) Don't read it or  2) read it and proclaim it a lie or Zionist propaganda. Go hump a stump.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> This is how the IDF treats women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> How Israeli Soldiers Treat Palestinian Women and Children! - YouTube







 Once again no corroborative evidence of them being IDF what so ever. You really must try harder with things like an IDF commander agreeing that this was how the IDF treat all Palestinian women and children, backed up by a statement from the Knesset


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how the IDF treats women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> How Israeli Soldiers Treat Palestinian Women and Children! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?
Click to expand...




 She spat in the face of the hamas soldier


----------



## montelatici

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHDJPfWIt6c]IDF captain admits israel is commiting war crimes - YouTube[/ame]

Another fabrication?


----------



## Hossfly

Phoenall said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how the IDF treats women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> How Israeli Soldiers Treat Palestinian Women and Children! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She spat in the face of the hamas soldier
Click to expand...

Hamas? Yeah, it figures. Look close and it shows he slapped her on the shoulder.


----------



## Hossfly

Hossfly said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She spat in the face of the hamas soldier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas? Yeah, it figures. Look close and it shows he slapped her on the shoulder.
Click to expand...

At 1:03 it's in slow motion and you can pause in the middle of the swing. Photog blew it!


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> IDF captain admits israel is commiting war crimes - YouTube
> 
> Another fabrication?


Yep.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDF captain admits israel is commiting war crimes - YouTube
> 
> Another fabrication?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
Click to expand...


Unbelievable. That's why you are pro-Israel.  You are a bunch of brainwashed nutcases.


----------



## Sally

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDF captain admits israel is commiting war crimes - YouTube
> 
> Another fabrication?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unbelievable. That's why you are pro-Israel.  You are a bunch of brainwashed nutcases.
Click to expand...



Like the Boiler Room Gang here is not a bunch of nutcases trying so hard to demonize Israel all over the Internet.  Does anyone think that the Boiler Room Gang cares about their Musllim brethren murdering innocent people all over the Muslim  world?  The blood of these innocent people runs down the roads, but it is more important for the Boilder Room Gang to demonize Israel.  Just whom do they think they are fooling?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDF captain admits israel is commiting war crimes - YouTube
> 
> Another fabrication?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unbelievable. That's why you are pro-Israel.  You are a bunch of brainwashed nutcases.
Click to expand...

I admit that I am what it says beside my avatar. Put that on there in 2008.


----------



## aris2chat

Billo_Really said:


> This is how the IDF treats women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> How Israeli Soldiers Treat Palestinian Women and Children! - YouTube




Are you aware of the context behind what happened?  Where?  When?  What the group was protest?  What they were trying to do?  What else was happening at the same time?
Are you aware there was an investigation?  Do you know what the findings were? That people were playing musical chains in and out of an ambulance?  The it and the cameras were there waiting before hand?

I doubt you do or else you don't care about the truth, just sensationalizing a video for propaganda purposes.

You are like an annoying little mayfly..  Shoo


----------



## Kondor3

Hossfly said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no shooting of Palestinian children for sport.
> 
> Certainly nothing 'official' nor 'officially condoned' nor 'widespread' in any sense of those words.
> 
> The 'accuser' here may be mistaking False Bravado served-up by someone obliged to shoot a minor (child) who got too close to a Fence Line or other Security Barrier, with suspicious materials; a case of the shooter deluding himself for the moment that it was no big deal or a game, to mask the pain and guilt and doubt associated with any such shooting, even a so-called 'righteous' one.
> 
> But, of course, the Muslim Apologist crowd around here (and their sources, elsewhere) will take that kind of scenario and warp and spin it until it's damned-near unrecognizable, in frantic attempts to politicize and capitalize upon any death of a minor-child, in connection with IDF operations.
> 
> It's horseshit - and we all know it - but we've gotta listen to the Fifth-Columnist crowd around here try to bullshit their way into the Facts Book, using highly questionable materials. Big surprise. Not.
> 
> 
> 
> All conjecture, with no links to back up anything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it about links with You People? People make conversation and conjecture, you demand a link. People provide a link, you either:   1) Don't read it or  2) read it and proclaim it a lie or Zionist propaganda. Go hump a stump.
Click to expand...

No shit... ain't _that_ the truth... I've pretty much given up on Smurfette...


----------



## MrMax

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDF captain admits israel is commiting war crimes - YouTube
> 
> Another fabrication?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unbelievable. That's why you are pro-Israel.  You are a bunch of brainwashed nutcases.
Click to expand...


We're pro-Israel because Muslims are scum with their bullshit sharia law, whose prophet described how to wipe his ass with an uneven number of rocks. OUCH!


----------



## pbel

*I couldn't have said it better: Alon Ben-Meir *



Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir

_No one knows the history of the Jews better than the Jews themselves. Persecution, segregation, expulsion and death unmatched in human history were their lot nearly everywhere. But such unspeakable historic misfortune offers no license to inflict pain, suffering and indignity onto others.

Knowing the true meaning of dehumanization, degradation and derision must give rise to the Jews' moral values and humanity by treating the Palestinians with compassion and sensitivity. With the inevitability of coexistence and fate intertwined, what hope will be in the offing for tomorrow if not harmony and peace? 

A new disaster will be waiting in the wings, obliterating the Jews' dream to build a lasting free nation like many others, rather than live in isolation as a garrison state surrounded by fences and foes, caging itself in and drowning in an ocean of hostility and contempt._


----------



## Kondor3

Vidkun Quisling thought it was a good idea for the Norwegians to try to get along with the more powerful and numerous Nazis, because he thought their dominance was inevitable, and because it made more sense to submit than to remain on-guard, on their own behalf. He, too, was an educated man, and made his sales pitch with honeyed words and sugarplum visions.

Doesn't mean he was right.


----------



## pbel

*How many times have I said this?*


Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir

*
The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side. 

History has shown that time and again.*


----------



## MrMax

pbel said:


> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*



Keep clinging on to that myth, it's all you've got.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pbel said:


> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*











I like your humor. You're funny.


----------



## pbel

MrMax said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clinging on to that myth, it's all you've got.
Click to expand...


Demographics are proven mathematical theory and Political Science postulates have proven to be accurate throughout History...

All polymaths who live and write today, have so noted.


----------



## Statistikhengst

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clinging on to that myth, it's all you've got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demographics are proven mathematical theory and Political Science postulates have proven to be accurate throughout History...
> 
> All polymaths who live and write today, have so noted.
Click to expand...



Uhuh.

The "palis" are a fart that came out of a rusty tailpipe on one of the autos of history, nothing less and nothing more.

And that's one auto that is headed for: the junkpile.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> What is it about links with You People? People make conversation and conjecture, you demand a link. People provide a link, you either:   1) Don't read it or  2) read it and proclaim it a lie or Zionist propaganda. Go hump a stump.


I don't do that and you know I don't_*..............Virginian!*_


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about links with You People? People make conversation and conjecture, you demand a link. People provide a link, you either:   1) Don't read it or  2) read it and proclaim it a lie or Zionist propaganda. Go hump a stump.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't do that and you know I don't_*..............Virginian!*_
Click to expand...



Oh, boy, I bet that hurt, really bad.


Uhuh....


----------



## Billo_Really

aris2chat said:


> Are you aware of the context behind what happened?  Where?  When?  What the group was protest?  What they were trying to do?  What else was happening at the same time?
> Are you aware there was an investigation?  Do you know what the findings were? That people were playing musical chains in and out of an ambulance?  The it and the cameras were there waiting before hand?
> 
> I doubt you do or else you don't care about the truth, just sensationalizing a video for propaganda purposes.
> 
> You are like an annoying little mayfly..  Shoo


I saw an IDF soldier punch a Palestinian woman in the mouth with a closed fist.

There is nothing you can say, that could justify that!


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> Oh, boy, I bet that hurt, really bad.
> 
> 
> Uhuh....


You lost your bet.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, boy, I bet that hurt, really bad.
> 
> 
> Uhuh....
> 
> 
> 
> You lost your bet.
Click to expand...


You do understand the difference between literal and figurative, right?

Oh, wait, mebbe you don't....


----------



## Billo_Really

Hossfly said:


> A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?


So you think its cool to hit women?

I bet you wear these...









You know what they call those, don't you?


----------



## pbel

Statistikhengst said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clinging on to that myth, it's all you've got.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographics are proven mathematical theory and Political Science postulates have proven to be accurate throughout History...
> 
> All polymaths who live and write today, have so noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhuh.
> 
> The "palis" are a fart that came out of a rusty tailpipe on one of the autos of history, nothing less and nothing more.
> 
> And that's one auto that is headed for: the junkpile.
Click to expand...


Having morons like you on these boards is heartening because self delusion is why so many military powers collapsed from within...But a jackass braying like you must give hope to the Jihadists who admire your stupidity.


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> You do understand the difference between literal and figurative, right?
> 
> Oh, wait, mebbe you don't....


Do you understand the difference between 480V and 208V?

Maybe you don't...


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Once again no corroborative evidence of them being IDF what so ever.


Now you're getting ridiculous!



Phoenall said:


> You really must try harder with things like an IDF commander agreeing that this was how the IDF treat all Palestinian women and children, backed up by a statement from the Knesset


You don't determine the rules of evidence, especially since you  provide none yourself.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand the difference between literal and figurative, right?
> 
> Oh, wait, mebbe you don't....
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between 480V and 208V?
> 
> Maybe you don't...
Click to expand...


Äääh, yepp, I do.


I also understand the difference between a **** and a simple bitch.


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your humor. You're funny.
Click to expand...

Say what you will... pbel does amuse, sometimes.

Gotta admire the Imagination that goes into such a pronouncement, not to mention the Moxie required to serve-up such balderdash, without flinching...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The other side _does_ serve-up a decent Clown Act from time-to-time, doesn't it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Dinner *AND* a show...


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> Äääh, yepp, I do.


Let's see if you do?

*You have a 480Y/277V, 3PH, 4W, 1600A main switchboard:*

Do you need GFI?  Yes or no?​




Statistikhengst said:


> I also understand the difference between a **** and a simple bitch.


Do you also understand it is not cool to hit either one?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Äääh, yepp, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if you do?
> 
> *You have a 480Y/277V, 3PH, 4W, 1600A main switchboard:*
> 
> Do you need GFI?  Yes or no?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also understand the difference between a **** and a simple bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you also understand it is not cool to hit either one?
Click to expand...



I have never hit a woman in my life, not even once. Shame on you for even thinking such bullshit. Poor, poor thing.


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> I have never hit a woman in my life, not even once. Shame on you for even thinking such bullshit. Poor, poor thing.


Okay, fine.

Are you going to answer the question?


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*





 And how many times have you been told it is a load of old cobblers. The muslims are past their maximum population already and will start to die out through disease and starvation very shortly. If they cant manage to defeat Israel with 6 million people and islam  with 2 billion muslims around the world then what chance will they have if they double their numbers. It will always be that islam will fight each other and will never have the heart to combine forces  and take on the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

pbel said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How many times have I said this?*
> 
> 
> Forfeiting Israel's Reason to Exist*|*Alon Ben-Meir
> 
> *
> The Palestinians will play for time and grow stronger by sheer numbers and iron resolve, and Israel's self-consuming policies will make it steadily weaker. Its mighty military strength will pale in comparison to the Palestinians' inexhaustible human endurance, knowing full well that time is on their side.
> 
> History has shown that time and again.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clinging on to that myth, it's all you've got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demographics are proven mathematical theory and Political Science postulates have proven to be accurate throughout History...
> 
> All polymaths who live and write today, have so noted.
Click to expand...





 The muslims of gaza, west bank, Syria and iran already outnumber the Jews by about 20 to 1 so why haven't they attacked in force already. pretty good odds for the muslims to start a fight. Then there would be the extremists from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi and the other nations bringing the numbers up to around 30 to 1 odds. Every day the muslims  wait they get weaker and weaker and soon will be unable to mount any form of attack.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the context behind what happened?  Where?  When?  What the group was protest?  What they were trying to do?  What else was happening at the same time?
> Are you aware there was an investigation?  Do you know what the findings were? That people were playing musical chains in and out of an ambulance?  The it and the cameras were there waiting before hand?
> 
> I doubt you do or else you don't care about the truth, just sensationalizing a video for propaganda purposes.
> 
> You are like an annoying little mayfly..  Shoo
> 
> 
> 
> I saw an IDF soldier punch a Palestinian woman in the mouth with a closed fist.
> 
> There is nothing you can say, that could justify that!
Click to expand...





 And if it was later shown to be a Palestinian dressed as an IDF soldier would your condemn the regime that put out the LIES and PROPAGANDA. Pause the video and see what the alleged IDF soldier is wearing that distinguishes him as an IDF soldier ?


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand the difference between literal and figurative, right?
> 
> Oh, wait, mebbe you don't....
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between 480V and 208V?
> 
> Maybe you don't...
Click to expand...





 YUUUP    one is a 3 phase supply the other is single phase.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again no corroborative evidence of them being IDF what so ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're getting ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really must try harder with things like an IDF commander agreeing that this was how the IDF treat all Palestinian women and children, backed up by a statement from the Knesset
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't determine the rules of evidence, especially since you  provide none yourself.
Click to expand...





 How is iy every single one of your links is from "a Palestinian source" ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Billo_Really said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?
> 
> 
> 
> *So you think its cool to hit women?*
> 
> I bet you wear these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what they call those, don't you?
Click to expand...


Caught on tape @ 1:36

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENskEQL7y7w]ALICIA KEYS - GIRL ON FIRE ( TRIBUTE TO PALESTINE WOMAN ) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hossfly

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the context behind what happened?  Where?  When?  What the group was protest?  What they were trying to do?  What else was happening at the same time?
> Are you aware there was an investigation?  Do you know what the findings were? That people were playing musical chains in and out of an ambulance?  The it and the cameras were there waiting before hand?
> 
> I doubt you do or else you don't care about the truth, just sensationalizing a video for propaganda purposes.
> 
> You are like an annoying little mayfly..  Shoo
> 
> 
> 
> I saw an IDF soldier punch a Palestinian woman in the mouth with a closed fist.
> 
> There is nothing you can say, that could justify that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it was later shown to be a Palestinian dressed as an IDF soldier would your condemn the regime that put out the LIES and PROPAGANDA. Pause the video and see what the alleged IDF soldier is wearing that distinguishes him as an IDF soldier ?
Click to expand...

I already posted the point of time (1:03) that shows the punch is shown in slow motion as another actor on the left is stepping back and the *open palm* "punch" is pulled as it lands on her shoulder. Anyone who knows anything about film editing would have cut out that footage. 
This is strictly a Pallywood production and the soldiers are clearly not IDF troops. Another pitiful fail.


----------



## toastman

What a lovely propaganda video. 
I pity anyone who calls for that shit.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Pallywood Oscar nomination.  What provoked the bitchslap?
> 
> 
> 
> *So you think its cool to hit women?*
> 
> I bet you wear these...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what they call those, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caught on tape @ 1:36
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENskEQL7y7w]ALICIA KEYS - GIRL ON FIRE ( TRIBUTE TO PALESTINE WOMAN ) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


The tour was last year.  BDS did not detour Keys

Pop Stars to Perform in Israel, Defying Boycotters - Music - News - Israel National News

This BDS think is only going to hurt palestinians that have jobs now.  Who will hire them if any company in the west bank goes under?  PA can't, they are already bankrupt.

This whole boycott thing is nonsense.


----------



## pbel

Phoenall said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep clinging on to that myth, it's all you've got.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographics are proven mathematical theory and Political Science postulates have proven to be accurate throughout History...
> 
> All polymaths who live and write today, have so noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The muslims of gaza, west bank, Syria and iran already outnumber the Jews by about 20 to 1 so why haven't they attacked in force already. pretty good odds for the muslims to start a fight. Then there would be the extremists from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi and the other nations bringing the numbers up to around 30 to 1 odds. Every day the muslims  wait they get weaker and weaker and soon will be unable to mount any form of attack.
Click to expand...


Phoenall, its pretty apparent that your not well educated or you would know that Demographics do not need guns to proceed and work.

 Its called Acculturation, that how cultures spread and absorb smaller populations...


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> And if it was later shown to be a Palestinian dressed as an IDF soldier would your condemn the regime that put out the LIES and PROPAGANDA.


That's highly unlikely, but if you're whacked out hypothetical did turn out to be true, yeah, I would _"condemn the regime"._




Phoenall said:


> Pause the video and see what the alleged IDF soldier is wearing that distinguishes him as an IDF soldier ?


He's wearing the same thing all the other IDF soldiers wear.

In fact, he's wearing what every Israeli citizen eventually wears, after their 18th birthday.


----------



## flacaltenn

Moderation Message

Thread is closed until moderation
is completed in the morning.

flacaltenn


----------

