# Explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict



## xdangerousxdavex (Jun 16, 2015)

“If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”

I believe Israel don’t have any goal to conquer more territory or to eliminate all the arabs around Israel. I believe Mr.Prager. Don’t you think he’s right? If you don’t, show your vision of the problem.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 16, 2015)

The video starts from a false premise:

*NETANYAHU:*

"*there will be no Palestinian state"

Netanyahu If I m elected there will be no Palestinian state - Israel election 2015 - - Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News*


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 16, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> 
> I believe Israel don’t have any goal to conquer more territory or to eliminate all the arabs around Israel. I believe Mr.Prager. Don’t you think he’s right? If you don’t, show your vision of the problem.


Israel is slowly grabbing more land.


----------



## fanger (Jun 16, 2015)

“If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more, aggressive wars" peace would follow which would not suit the israeli leaders who govern through fear of attack


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> 
> I believe Israel don’t have any goal to conquer more territory or to eliminate all the arabs around Israel. I believe Mr.Prager. Don’t you think he’s right? If you don’t, show your vision of the problem.


If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?​
The Palestinians would regain their rights.


----------



## Daniyel (Jun 16, 2015)

fanger said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more, aggressive wars" peace would follow which would not suit the israeli leaders who govern through fear of attack


 After all the only way this could work out is by leaving Israel for good...Palestinians can't be THAT stupid.


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 16, 2015)

Israeli and Hamas officials meet in Qatar to discuss a five year ceasefire deal - Telegraph

News from The Associated Press

ISIS And Corruption Undermine Hamas Rule In Gaza

There will be no solution if everyone is stuck 70 yrs in the past.  The only solution will have to come from the now, from the situation at this point forward.  Everyone needs to stop trying to turn back time.  The world has changed too much and the situation as deteriorated to far to make either Israel or the palestinians change the needs of other group that much.  Even '67 is not realistic.
Palestinians have to come to terms with who they are now and what they can reasonably expect.  They need to change the mentality from hate to constructive solution.

It is not Israel, the arabs or the world that has failed them, they failed themselves.  They could not see beyond their hate.  They could not see that they were their own problem.  They lied to themselves so long they could not even find the truth about what the problem was.  They couldn't disagree with their own without turning to violence.

Even with an agreement to a ceasefire or non-violence, there are a million hurdles the palestinians need to solve for themselves internally.  They have to accept the problem, the blame and work together for the right solution, not the most expedient, not a temp fix.
The solution cannot come from outside the palestinians themselves.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 16, 2015)

What are you talking about.  Hopefully, they can work out a peaceful solution, but to say that the Palestinians should accept the blame for being colonized is absolutely ridiculous.  The original problem is the movement of Europeans to Palestine with the intention of removing the inhabitants.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 16, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> 
> I believe Israel don’t have any goal to conquer more territory or to eliminate all the arabs around Israel. I believe Mr.Prager. Don’t you think he’s right? If you don’t, show your vision of the problem.


How about Israel just comply with international law and end the illegal and immoral occupation and blockade?

The occupation is the cause of all the violence.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...


No damn boats, Bildo.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The video starts from a false premise:
> 
> *NETANYAHU:*
> 
> ...








 AND ! ! ! !   your point being in cherry picking his words is what exactly ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...







 LINK from a non partisan source


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

fanger said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more, aggressive wars" peace would follow which would not suit the israeli leaders who govern through fear of attack







 LIAR as the Palestinian charters say they would destroy Israel. But Israel is not fighting any aggressive wars, they are defending against aggressive violent war coming from the muslims.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...






 They never lost any rights, they gave them up. So what difference would Israel laying down its arms do.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What are you talking about.  Hopefully, they can work out a peaceful solution, but to say that the Palestinians should accept the blame for being colonized is absolutely ridiculous.  The original problem is the movement of Europeans to Palestine with the intention of removing the inhabitants.







 They were never colonised were they, and you have never proven this. In fact your links point to the opposite being the case. But they should take the blame for thinking that violence would result in a change in International law. The original problem started a long time before the Jews went back to their ancestral lands, it started when mohammed decided to force them to convert and wiped them out when they refused.  Read the Koran as it is all in there how they are commanded to kill the unbelievers until there is only islam left


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...







 The violence is the reason for the blockade, and it is legal under International law. So is the occupation and will stay until the Palestinians stop the violence and terrorism.
 If as you say the occupation is the cause of the violence then what caused the violence before 1967 ?


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> LINK from a non partisan source


"*Bayit Yehudi Chairman says Jews in the Golan should number 100,000 in five years*"
Bennett to world Recognize Golan Heights as Israeli territory - Israel News Ynetnews


----------



## rylah (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > LINK from a non partisan source
> ...



So what?
Should Israel give it to Syria, IS or wait...hamas?

Better give Israel a chance to develop something beneficial
that's on the level of our civilization.

Otherwise it could turn into a dumpster like it was in Jerusalem after muslim rule.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

rylah said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


It does not only refute the OP, it proves the opposite.
This is Syrian soil and Israel is just underpinning its occupation with extremist, armed settlers in a time when Al-Qaeda is between Syrian forces and Golan.


----------



## rylah (Jun 17, 2015)

By occupation You mean kicking Syrian ass hard for trying to annihilate Israel.
Well that's war for big men, what You loose You don't whine 'bout.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The video starts from a false premise:
> 
> *NETANYAHU:*
> 
> ...


Indeed. The Palestinian state already exists... Jordan.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

rylah said:


> By occupation You mean kicking Syrian ass hard for trying to annihilate Israel.
> Well that's war for big men, what You loose You don't whine 'bout.


Nonsense. Syria stopped Israel´s advance in Syria and Lebanon.
Don´t deflect from the topic, btw.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The video starts from a false premise:
> ...


More nonsense. When Zion puppets are running out of arguments they drop their mask...


----------



## rylah (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > By occupation You mean kicking Syrian ass hard for trying to annihilate Israel.
> ...



How's that deflection? I merely answered You,
it's just that You see those territories as "occupied" even though it was accepted after 67 that Israel needed new borders to hold the state. Of course after those Syrians, Egyptians and other neighbors went to war of ANNIHILATION of Israel...You talk to me of "occupied".
It was a strategic place taken back from enemies. 

In Your opinion that's  the explanation for the conflict...but I think You're mistaking
Your own propaganda the conflict started much earlier.
Golan heights are claimed by no one except Israel.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Oh really? Jordan and it's Jordanians--particularly Western Jordanians--are linguistically, culturally, religiously, and ethnically identical to "Palestinians."


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Not only that but Jordan was an artificial country created by the British in 1946, and named after a river.  Then, all of a sudden, Jordanian Arabs have a new ethnicity.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Who was Loki in mythology again?  I forgot.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

rylah said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


The conflict started in 1948. Since then, Israel launched many raids on its neighbors. Syria has always been a backer of Lebanon.
As for Golan, except for Israel, nobody has ever accepted the occupation.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Even if true: How is this a reason to expel the Palestinians from their land?


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Let me start my response with this: I'm not a social justice warrior; I'm not making a social justice point. I don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal bloodbath. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.

That said, there _is_ a point in recent history that helps define the situation clearly. That point is May 14, 1948. On that date, in the region that the Western powers knew as "Palestine," the Jewish People's Council introduced to the world the sovereign state of Israel; recognized by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union--the most powerful sovereign powers of the time.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the "Palestinian" nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its birth, by hostile Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it--and those hostile foreign nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.

It occurs to me that these Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."

Yet these "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of hostile invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and then they lost. They could have fought with their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise. It's pretty self evident why Israel wanted nothing to do with those back-stabbing shit-birds.

You cannot deny that Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region. You cannot claim that Arab/Islamic "Palestinians" stood up as a valid sovereign organization to make a competing claim. And you cannot deny that (aided by foreign nations) certain Arab/Islamic Israelis went beyond contesting the legitimacy of Israeli sovereignty, but went all the more farther by embracing the invaders of their own lands--traitors to their nation and traitors to themselves.

Considering the behavior of the progeny of those traitors, I'm entirely unsurprised that Israelis are unwelcoming to them; and yet I am wholly surprised at the restraint Israel has exercised in not obliterating them from the planet in the manner that they have clearly been so capable of doing all this time.

I think these "Palestinians" have been barred from citizenship in the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations (most notably Jordan and Syria) because the citizens of those nations weren't too keen on patriating the traitors to Israel that they sponsored in 1948 (after all, traitors ARE traitors regardless of which side they sell-out to); and they sensibly maintain that same position of disdain for the trouble-making posterity of those traitors.

If I'm not wrong about this, it seems apparent to me that the right thing for these Palestinians to do is accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


You say that Israel has been attacked since its recreation. But others say, its the other way round, among them was the SU.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Try reading the Mandate for Palestine and what it says


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...







 The conflict started in 1920 when the LoN first broached the subject of granting part of Palestine for the Jews national home. That was also when pan arab nationalism started up and resorted to violent means to achieve their aims.
 Golan was destined to be part of Israel from 1923 and it was only when Syria claimed it that it became an issue


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...






*Because they did not accept the UN resolution calling on them to stop all belligerence and live in peace. Makes them fifth columnists and liable to deportation, just as it would in the USA*


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...







 And the facts on the ground show that from May 15 1948 Israel has been under constant attack


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


I think what I said was:





LOki said:


> Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the "Palestinian" nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its birth, by hostile Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it--and those hostile foreign nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.


Are you saying that The Soviet Union claimed that Israel attacked the neighboring Arab/Islamic nations on May 14, 1948?

Is there any substantiation in verifiable facts of reality for such a claim?

You'd think that interesting little bit of history would have surfaced by now.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Let me correct you.  The surrounding Arab states did not attack the Jews in Palestine.  The surrounding Arab states intervened in an attempt to prevent the Jews in Palestine from massacring and evicting the Christians and Muslims under the Plan Dalet. The Jews intended to massacre and evict as many non-Jews from the area illegally assigned to them as indicated by Plan Dalet.  The Christians and Muslims knew this was the plan and had every right to attempt to prevent the Jews from implementing their plan for ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Palestinians continue to have every right to attempt to regain their land in any way possible including demographics, which is probably how they will regain their land eventually.

That the Arab states were unsuccessful in preventing the massacre of Christians and Muslims and their eviction by the Jews does not mean that the their intervention was in anyway unjustified.

" a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...







 The arab league attacked the Jews months before plan Dalet was even thought of. It was the attacks from 1947 that were the foundation of the plan to eradicate all terrorists from the planned state of Israel


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Thank you. Please do.



montelatici said:


> The surrounding Arab states did not attack the Jews in Palestine.


Well, they most certainly did. That they did so is historical fact.



montelatici said:


> The surrounding Arab states intervened in an attempt to prevent the Jews in Palestine from massacring and evicting the Christians and Muslims under the Plan Dalet.


Semantics. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.

That said, there _is_ a point in recent history that helps define the situation clearly. That point is May 14, 1948. On that date, in the region that the Western powers knew as "Palestine," the Jewish People's Council introduced to the world the sovereign state of Israel; recognized by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union--the most powerful sovereign powers of the time.



montelatici said:


> The Jews intended to massacre and evict as many non-Jews from the area illegally assigned to them as indicated by Plan Dalet.


Or, alternatively the Jews intended to evict or otherwise remove the soon-to-be traitors to the nascent state of Israel, sponsored by the surrounding  Arab/Islamic nations who were conspicuously planning to claim the Palestinian territory for themselves.

You see? This is why I don't give a fuck about anything before May 14, 1948.  I just don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal blood-bath. While I understand that May 13, 1948 is not pre-history, I draw the line at last moment the previous recognized sovereign in control of the region left, and the next  recognized sovereign took over.



montelatici said:


> The Christians and Muslims knew this was the plan and had every right to attempt to prevent the Jews from implementing their plan for ethnic cleansing and genocide.


This nothing but appeal to emotion. And hearsay semantics. Which is why I don't give a fuck about anything before May 14, 1948. 



montelatici said:


> The Palestinians continue to have every right to attempt to regain their land in any way possible including demographics, which is probably how they will regain their land eventually.


No. No they don't.

These Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."

Yet these "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of hostile invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and then they lost. They could have fought beside their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise.

The right thing for these "Palestinians" to do is accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason. Jordan seems to be the best likely candidate.



montelatici said:


> That the Arab states were unsuccessful in preventing the massacre of Christians and Muslims and their eviction by the Jews does not mean that the their intervention was in anyway unjustified.


I'm not a social justice warrior; I'm not making a social justice point. I don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal bloodbath. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

The Jews attacked Palestinian towns and began evicting Christians and Muslims long before the Arab League was able to mobilize a force to prevent the massacre and eviction of the Christians and Muslims.  It was the intent of the Jews to expel every Christian and Muslim.  They would have been successful in doing so had the Arab League not intervened.  As such 10%-15% of the Christians and Muslims were saved from massacre and/or eviction thanks to the Arab Leagues's intervention.

"Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...




I will not only bring it up, I will repeat it, because it is fact.  All you do is repeat Zionist propaganda derived from Zionist sources. That is, you post bullshit, I post fact.  The Jews had no intention of allowing the Christians and Muslims to remain.  The only reason 10%-15% of Christians and Muslims were not expelled or massacred by the Jews was as a result of the Arab League's intervention.  Left to their own devices the Jews would have expelled or killed every Christian and Muslim.  This was the plan prior to Israel's independence.  

" Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”

Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of “a body which would direct the Yishuv’s war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible”. This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the “Transfer Committee” which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## rylah (Jun 17, 2015)

Do You speak of *B*alestinians or Jebustinians as Arafat later indiicated?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The Jews attacked Palestinian towns and began evicting Christians and Muslims long before the Arab League was able to mobilize a force to prevent the massacre and eviction of the Christians and Muslims.  It was the intent of the Jews to expel every Christian and Muslim.  They would have been successful in doing so had the Arab League not intervened.  As such 10%-15% of the Christians and Muslims were saved from massacre and/or eviction thanks to the Arab Leagues's intervention.
> 
> "Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”
> 
> The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition







 Even this link says that the arab muslims abandoned their homes and where not forcibly evicted.


 Between the partition plan for Palestine adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947 and the 1949 ceasefire that ended the Arab-Israeli war, begun by the invasion of 15 May 1948, several hundred thousand Palestinians abandoned their homes in territory that ended up occupied by Israel (1).


 And the only dissenters where communists and left wing Zionists


 But it does not say that the arab league had not started their incitement to violence before the birth of Israel, in fact it says that from 1947 the arab league had been engaged in attacks on the Jews.

 Once again sent to the dunce corner by your own links.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 Nowhere in your link can I find any mention of you NAZI RACIST claims that the Jews were planning to wipe out the muslims and Christians.

 The only people expelled by Israel where fifth columnists, known terrorists, agitators and  criminals. And as another of your links showed these amounted to under 12,000 people. The rest left of their own accord.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


I'm not disputing or affirming your "facts." They are irrelevant to my point for the precise reasons I submitted, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Seriously. Don't bother to bring it up. It's meaningless to the whole world of people who do not give a fuck about the rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other.



montelatici said:


> All you do is repeat Zionist propaganda derived from Zionist sources. That is, you post bullshit, I post fact.


Ah. I see clearly. All that which fails to validate the brutality your favored rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon the other rock-chucking retards is "Zionist propaganda derived from Zionist sources," "bullshit."

You are obviously an antisemitic ideologue. Good for you, Pumpkin.

You know what Cupcake? I don't give a fuck that you're the grand-fucking-dragon of your own personal illuminati lodge that claims the sole monopoly on what is "fact."

What you post looks just like the lies submitted by "Zionist" propagandists. You're both clown-shoes.



montelatici said:


> The Jews had no intention of allowing the Christians and Muslims to remain.


Yet they remain.



montelatici said:


> The only reason 10%-15% of Christians and Muslims were not expelled or massacred by the Jews was as a result of the Arab League's intervention.


So this Arab League that failed to prevent the existence of the nation of Israel--which was establishing their sovereignty through massacring Christians and Muslims--managed to do what?... help establish the existence of the state of Israel by preventing the massacre Christians and Muslims? Gotcha.



montelatici said:


> Left to their own devices the Jews would have expelled or killed every Christian and Muslim.


Yet they are still there. The Arab League ENTIRELY powerless to prevent further expulsions or "massacres." So very strange.



montelatici said:


> This was the plan prior to Israel's independence.


Well. I hate to break this to you Cupcake; while I recognize the actual existence of "Plan Dalet" and what it says, considering the fine relationship Israel has with Christians and Muslims in their country who do not behave like violent sociopaths, either they were not as committed to this "plan" in the manner your dogma insists, or there really was no such "plan" (in the manner your dogma insists) in the first place.

Either way, I don't give a fuck about the rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...




" Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...)* the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”*

Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of “a body which would direct the Yishuv’s war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible”. This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the “Transfer Committee” which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> Israel is slowly grabbing more land.



Good.  They should have annexed the whole block in 1967. That would have been the end of it.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...





It's not just Plan Dalet, there was every intention of the European Jews to colonize Palestine from the beginning.

New York Times July 20, 1899











Zionists planned to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times 

Jewish Telegraphic Agency July 25, 1926

*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ*

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” 

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier Weizmann Tells Actions Committ Jewish Telegraphic Agency

And in 1940 the director of the Jewish National Fund's Lands Department was clear on the Jewish intentions:


" Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”

Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of “a body which would direct the Yishuv’s war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible”. This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the “Transfer Committee” which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Davey T (Jun 17, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...


What occupation?  Israel is trying to live in the middle of people that swear to their destruction.  You have to realize that the Palestinians have sworn to the destruction of Israel.  Right?  If the Palestinians would say Israel could live in peace, there would be no war.  Why is Israel the only country that can't defend itself?


----------



## Davey T (Jun 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...


They govern there own area.  What are you talking about?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

Did the Europeans that colonized Palestine believe that the inhabitants would welcome the colonization of their land and homes?  Did the colonists believe that the local inhabitants would just sit back and not resist colonization?  What planet are you living on?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

Davey T said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > xdangerousxdavex said:
> ...



They govern their own area?  If they governed their own area there wouldn't be Israeli settlements in their area, you moron.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Do you mean the following?
When Israel claims it it has to be Israeli.
When Syria claims it it has to be Israeli, too?

It is interesting, however, so please give a link.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


So the IDF lives in peace with the Palestinians?

Israeli blitz leaves trauma and grief in Gaza s Ground Zero


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Would you mind to share these facts with me?


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Israel is slowly grabbing more land.
> ...


Don´t show up with right to exist stuff, then.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


I don't give a fuck about the prehistoric underpinnings of this inter-tribal bloodbath. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full of lies--from BOTH sides. Hence, _that_ narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to. Don't even bring it up.



So, in light of your most recent contribution, the right thing for these "Palestinians" to do is still; accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason. Jordan seems to be the best likely candidate


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



There is no "right to exist".  It has nothing to do with rights, but the ability to keep what you have by whatever means necessary, whether alone or in partnership with others.  Thus has it been throughout human history.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



They did not "turn against their countrymen" they elected to resist being murdered or expelled by the colonists from Europe. As the record shows, the Europeans intended to kill or evict every non-Jew in the territory.  The Palestinians have every legal right, under international law,  to seek to reacquire their homes and land.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Did the Europeans that colonized Palestine believe that the inhabitants would welcome the colonization of their land and homes?


Palestine was a colony of the Ottoman Empire. More Middle-Eastern/Asian than European.



montelatici said:


> Did the colonists believe that the local inhabitants would just sit back and not resist colonization?


Of course they'd resist, Pumpkin... reach back through the entirety of antiquity and you'll see that resistance played out again, and again, and again.

 I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first-cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards in the Middle-East inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive.

The neat thing though, is that the local Jewish inhabitants of "Palestine"--Jewish Palestinians, if you will--were entirely welcoming of these "colonists" as you call them. Strange, you'd neglect acknowledgment of that fact.



montelatici said:


> What planet are you living on?


The planet where Palestine wasn't colonized by some (unspecified) European nation in the 20th century.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 17, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > xdangerousxdavex said:
> ...



Welcome Davey!  Israel should indeed defend itself.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Does not say what you claim, you are letting your NAZI JEW HATRED cloud your mind again


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Did the Europeans that colonized Palestine believe that the inhabitants would welcome the colonization of their land and homes?
> ...



Colonization and 20th centiury, son.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency

*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ*
July 25, 1926


London (Jul. 23)

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.


Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier Weizmann Tells Actions Committ Jewish Telegraphic Agency


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


They sure did. The record is unambiguous on that point.




montelatici said:


> ...they elected to resist being murdered or expelled by the colonists from Europe.


There were no such "colonists," and there was no such policy of murder or expulsion.

You need to actually read Plan Delat to understand that reality, Cupcake.



montelatici said:


> As the record shows, the Europeans intended to kill or evict every non-Jew in the territory.


Only your specially contrived record shows that intent, Cupcake.



montelatici said:


> The Palestinians have every legal right, under international law,  to seek to reacquire their homes and land.


The right thing for these "Palestinians" to do is still; accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason. Jordan seems to be the best likely candidate


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 And where does it say that this was put into operation and all the Muslims and Christians were expelled or killed by the Jews ?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

How is it possible for you to be wrong on every point.  It's amazing. 
*
Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department.* This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) *There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”*

Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of “a body which would direct the Yishuv’s war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible”. This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the “Transfer Committee” which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas.

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 And where does it say that this was implemented as an official Israeli action, and when was it implemented.

 Just more examples of your NAZI JEW HATRED


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Jewish colonization, Pumpkin. That's what it says.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



The lack of success does not change the intent.   The Arab League's intervention made it more difficult for the Israelis to achieve the objective, detailed below:



Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...)* There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”*
*
The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition*


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



So there is no disagreement, son.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


The unfortunate reality for you Pumpkin, is that the support you bring for your very own bigoted dogma still looks more like a sad admission that the Arab/Muslims' irrational hatred for all things Jewish is as insoluble as your irrational hatred for all things Jewish; rather than some official mandate to exterminate or expel all Arabs.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


There is no European nation of Jews, Pumpkin. No colony. No colonists.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


This is what I have for you:


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I don't hate Jews or "all things Jewish".  Where do you come up with that?  The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims  might, understandably, hate Jews in general after what the Jews have done (and are doing) to them. But, I suspect that Palestinians most differentiate between Zionists and Jews.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


1) I have to wonder how you knew I could read German. Have I met you IRL?

2) I admit that my days of regular German usage are far behind me, so I might have missed the part where this actually states that The Soviet Union claims Israel attacked the neighboring Arab/Islamic nations on May 14, 1948,... you know, in some unprovoked manner.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> 1) I have to wonder how you knew I could read German. Have I met you IRL?


I don´t think so but most of you guys here are able to read German. It is the only source, anyway,




LOki said:


> 2) I admit that my days of regular German usage are far behind me, so I might have missed the part where this actually states that The Soviet Union claims Israel attacked the neighboring Arab/Islamic nations on May 14, 1948,... you know, in some unprovoked manner.


As you can read, the Israeli´s started the war by an unscheduled declaration of the Israeli nation.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Let's see, bozo says no colonists and Weizmann says he plans to colonize, not only Palestine but Trans-Jordan too.  Who should we believe?  A clown, or the first president of Israel?  That's the thing about ideologues they are able to ignore fact.

"
*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ*

*“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.*
July 25, 1926

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier Weizmann Tells Actions Committ Jewish Telegraphic Agency


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


It's the vibe you anti-semitism gives off. Apologies if I misapprehended the nature of your obvious bigotry.



montelatici said:


> The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims  might, understandably, hate Jews in general after what the Jews have done (and are doing) to them.


Again, regarding this return the vast history of these retards brutalizing each other:





montelatici said:


> But, I suspect that Palestinians most differentiate between Zionists and Jews.


I've got a feeling, just a hunch really, that the problem that "Palestinians" have with Zionists, is primarily that they're Jews.

After all, the fundamental differences between Jewish "Palestinians" who had no Jewish country of their own, and Arab "Palestinians"  is that Arab "Palestinians" have several countries of their own (including, and most notably, Jordan, whose population is linguistically, religiously, culturally, and ethnically indistinguishable from Arab "Palestinians") and that the Jewish "Palestinians" are primarily Jews. Their "problem" seems to have been that a Jewish state--and not so much just Jews--might exist right in the center of Islamic Middle East.

These Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."

It doesn't appear that Israeli's had such a difficult problem with the notion that they'd be living among Muslims.

On the other hand, it seems a bit far-fetched that these "Palestinians" would still be so put out if say ... five foreign nations of primarily Muslim composition should one day roll in all armed-up to take things over. Right? They'd have a problem with that, right? They'd still be tossing rocks and launching missile at those Johnny-come-lately's, right?


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


There was no colony. Therefore, no colonists. Done deal, Cupcake.


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > 1) I have to wonder how you knew I could read German. Have I met you IRL?
> ...


Yeah, I sort of understood that, but what I didn't get out of that was "Israel attacked the neighboring Arab/Islamic nations on May 14, 1948."

Israel may have been a bit abrupt with the delicate sensibilities of the international community, but it clearly did not launch an offensive against five foreign nations the moment it declared it's sovereignty.

History seems pretty clear on this: the "Palestinian" nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its birth, by hostile Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


How could all that neighbors be unable to defeat the unsuspecting, surprised Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


The 1948 war was ended by a UN Security Resolution. Nobody won or lost that war.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


But Israel took much of the soil the UN reserved for Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Indeed, Israel occupied that land but it did not win it.


----------



## proudveteran06 (Jun 17, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...



Tell us please what the problem was before the alleged " occupation"  There is never a response


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2015)

proudveteran06 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > xdangerousxdavex said:
> ...


There were no problems before the occupation. Well nothing serious.

In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.

This was borne out by the evidence tendered during our inquiry when representatives of all parties told us that before the War (WWI) the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which to-day is almost unknown in Palestine". - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


As it turns out, the Arab League in general, and Israel's neighbors in particular, were not so terribly secretive about their intentions. Israel was not surprised.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 17, 2015)

Davey T said:


> What occupation?  Israel is trying to live in the middle of people that swear to their destruction.  You have to realize that the Palestinians have sworn to the destruction of Israel.  Right?  If the Palestinians would say Israel could live in peace, there would be no war.  Why is Israel the only country that can't defend itself?


An occupational force cannot claim self defense.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 17, 2015)

proudveteran06 said:


> Tell us please what the problem was before the alleged " occupation"  There is never a response


The problem before the occupation, was Israeli aggression against its neighbors.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2015)

Billo_Really,  et al,

What "aggression" before occupation?



Billo_Really said:


> proudveteran06 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us please what the problem was before the alleged " occupation"  There is never a response
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There was the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran _(Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea)_, then the massing of troops (150,000) in the Sinai.  Egypt forced the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai, and moving forces right up to the Armistice line in close proximity of Israel _(a cautious movement to contact)_.

Jordan initiate Artillery Fire from the West Bank.   Israel and Syria were already involved in a Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) in which Israel was trying to restrain Syrian aggressive moves.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

What were Europeans doing in Palestine?  Might have they been planning to expel the non-Jewish inhabitants to establish a colony?


----------



## LOki (Jun 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What were Europeans doing in Palestine?


Pilgrimage.



montelatici said:


> Might have they been planning to expel the non-Jewish inhabitants to establish a colony?


A colony of what European nation? No home nation, no colony. No colony, no colonists. No colony or colonists, no colonization.

There was a plan for expelling hostile enemy collaborators. There was no "plan" to simply expel all non-Jewish inhabitants. You need to cool your tits, Pumpkin.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

Well son, they came from Europe and colonized a place on another continent.  They considered themselves colonists establishing colonies.  What have I gotten wrong?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 17, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What were Europeans doing in Palestine?
> ...




Just to add:

*Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250,000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years*
June 30, 1933

Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250 000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Boy are you full of shit.


----------



## JFish123 (Jun 17, 2015)

If anybody thinks israel is to blame for the Middle East or Palestinian problems they just are sooo ignorant and a bit anti Semetic















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Well son, they came from Europe and colonized a place on another continent.  They considered themselves colonists establishing colonies.  What have I gotten wrong?


Crack open a dictionary, Pumpkin.

It's just too bad that reality refuses to conform to your narrative.


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Not at all, Pumpkin. Your narrative is full of shit.


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Jun 18, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> How about Israel just comply with international law and end the illegal and immoral occupation and blockade?
> 
> The occupation is the cause of all the violence.


So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Like you the arab muslims use the term Zionists to mean Jews because you believe it absolves you of RACISM.  All in does is show your NAZI JEW HATRED all the more


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > 1) I have to wonder how you knew I could read German. Have I met you IRL?
> ...






 BULLSHIT



 You cant prove that as the declaration was scheduelled to be announced at the same time the anti-Semitic British threw in the towel


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 So where is the link showing that this was put in place and actioned ?


----------



## Humanity (Jun 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The video starts from a false premise:
> ...



Hardly think that making a true and valid fact known can be called "cherry picking"...

Do you deny Netanyahu words then?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 The cherry picked version YES as it does not tell the truth


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Do you need a link to Israel?  Proof that it was put in place and "actioned".


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...




Of course it tells the truth.  It is exactly what he said. Your problem is that you have told so many lies you no longer know what the truth is.  Telling lie upon lie upon lie tends to confuse a fellow like you.


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


I still think you mean to say they were "pilgrims." Pilgrims from numerous nations (primarily European) who settled in "Palestine proper." Pilgrims who settled in Palestine for the purpose of realizing, and living in, a Jewish nation.

You can go further to say that they were: Pilgrims from numerous nations (primarily European) settled in "Palestine proper" for the purpose of realizing, and living in, a Jewish nation; under the direction of the Zionist Organization; of which Dr. Chaim Weizmann was president.

Of course, if your purpose--and I mean _your_ purpose, Pumpkin--in _your_ use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

"Pilgrim" is the proper term (regardless of whoever used an improper term previously), and it's the precise term someone interested in conveying accurate information would use; it's the term someone with intellectual integrity would use.

After all, just because Dr. Weizmann was sloppy with his vocabulary, it does not follow that you must also be so sloppy. Correct?

But, if you disagree, you need only identify the European nation these so-called "colonists" were citizens of. Be specific, Cupcake.

No colonists. No colony. No colonization.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Interesting that it wasn't only Weizmann that used the term improperly.  It was a colony, colonized by colonists and it is an example of self-admitted neo-colonialism, son. 



*Agricultural Expert Arrives to Study Palestine Colonization Methods*

*Agricultural Expert Arrives to Study Palestine Colonization Methods Jewish Telegraphic Agency*

*British Leaders Laud Colonization Work in Palestine*
February 26, 1936

Explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

*Jewish Colonization Association Adopts Plans for 1964 Activities*

*Jewish Colonization Association Adopts Plans for 1964 Activities Jewish Telegraphic Agency*


*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ*

*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier Weizmann Tells Actions Committ Jewish Telegraphic Agency*


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


So. You're just going to be an obtuse retard about this. Yes?

I think it's safe to assert that when Weizmann, the JCA, Oppenheimer, the JTA, etc... use the term "colonization," they do not mean to assert that they are an Imperial power sending forth "colonists" from some (yet to be identified by you, Cupcake) European Jewish nation; these "colonists" being full citizens, and enjoying the benefits and privileges of citizenship, of that (yet to be identified by you, Cupcake) European Jewish nation.

I mean, it's really fucking safe to say that.

Of course, if your purpose--*and I mean your purpose, Pumpkin*--in _*your*_ use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Ain't that right, Cupcake.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Only if it says what you claim, if it doesn't then you are being a NAZI JEW HATER


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






But he did not say that did he, anymore than the pope only said KILL THE JEWS AND BURN THEM


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 But does not mention any invasion to expel or mass murder the people already living there, it was just a peaceful colony of Jews living on Jewish owned land and making it fertile again.

 That is what you mean by colonisation a concerted armed invasion to rid the land of its occupants. Never happened no matter how many times you spout your NAZI JEW HATRED


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...




"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel," he told the Israeli news site NRG.

Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

Netanyahu says no Palestinian state as long as he s prime minister Reuters


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 No that is just the editors headlines he actually said

* "Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel,"*


----------



## Coyote (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Colonist is as accurate a term as "Pilgrim".

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
_verb_
verb: *colonize*; 3rd person present: *colonizes*; past tense: *colonized*; past participle: *colonized*; gerund or present participle: *colonizing*; verb: *colonise*; 3rd person present: *colonises*; past tense: *colonised*; past participle: *colonised*; gerund or present participle: *colonising*

(of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
"the Greeks colonized Sicily and southern Italy"
synonyms: settle (in), people, populate;More
occupy, take over, seize, capture, subjugate
"the Germans colonized Tanganyika in 1885"
*come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
"a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"*
appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.
Ecology
(of a plant or animal) establish itself in an area.
"mussels can colonize even the most inhospitable rock surfaces"


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Of course, if the purpose in _your_ use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Right?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

What is illicit about calling a spade a spade?  I can't believe you can deny that the Zionists planned to colonize Palestine and colonized it. Even when they state it repeatedly in black and white.  Unbelievable.


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What is illicit about calling a spade a spade?  I can't believe you can deny that the Zionists planned to colonize Palestine and colonized it. Even when they state it repeatedly in black and white.  Unbelievable.


Petitio Principii.


----------



## Humanity (Jun 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



And what is the truth then Phoney?

That Netanyahu WILL allow a Palestinian state?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 18, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Let's not dance around.  Netanyahu will not allow a Palestinian state under his watch.


----------



## Humanity (Jun 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



And you have the audacity to accuse others of cherry picking!?!?

You missed the line from the article which states...

*Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."*


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What is illicit about calling a spade a spade?  I can't believe you can deny that the Zionists planned to colonize Palestine and colonized it. Even when they state it repeatedly in black and white.  Unbelievable.
> ...



ignore obvium


----------



## Coyote (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies.  The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion.  Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 18, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?


It started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt in 1967.


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.?  Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



The Zionist colonization is the same as any other colonization project.   More like a shark is like a shark


----------



## LOki (Jun 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


What nation were these "colonists" citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

Undermining the historic context.
Americans never had a kingdom in America, didn't have their ancestors' tombs or a temple.

No one cleansed or converted anyone in Israel.- that's a fact-there're 6 million of balestinians today.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Several European nations, just as the colonists of South Africa were.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> Undermining the historic context.
> Americans never had a kingdom in America, didn't have their ancestors' tombs or a temple.
> 
> No one cleansed or converted anyone in Israel.- that's a fact-there're 6 million of balestinians today.



There were hundreds of thousands Christians and Muslims cleansed from what is now Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

There's a jewish nation period. As there's an arab nation among many countries that have different name, they're still arabs.

EDIT: Jews were recently targeted as a nation-not "several different european nations"...suddenly they come to Israel and become europeans.
Ilogical.


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Israel has lands that were bought.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

I don't think Moroccans believe that they are Palestinians or Syrians.  Arab is a cultural denomination they have a similar language and most the same religion.  It is most similar to Hispanics, a Colombian is not a Spaniard or Argentine.


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

No they're simply all (most) arabs.

In europe they were targeted as jews, but when they came to Israel suddenly turned europeans??


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.  

*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *
*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS*
*SPECIAL COMMITTEE*
*ON PALESTINE*



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

*VOLUME 1*





*Lake Success*
*New York*
*1947*

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Jews owned about 7% of Palestine by 1948.

Israel had nothing.


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Do You admit on the mistake?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


What mistake?


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



No the land were bought by an organization representng jews of Israel.
All the  private lands submitted to KKL or some other  zionist organization

So admit Your mistake?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Picayune.


----------



## rylah (Jun 18, 2015)

jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to 
the state becoming official Israel lands. What's mine I can give to anyone.
Whats trivial?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
> the state becoming official Israel lands. What's mine I can give to anyone.
> Whats trivial?


But that was only about 7% of the land.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> Undermining the historic context.
> Americans never had a kingdom in America, didn't have their ancestors' tombs or a temple.
> 
> No one cleansed or converted anyone in Israel.- that's a fact-there're 6 million of balestinians today.



Americans had "Manifest Destiny" every bit as compelling as a Kingdom that ceased to exist 3000 years ago.  The odd thing is - no other nation uses a long defunct kingdom as a rational for territorial aquisition.

There was certainly ethnic cleansing and there still is through a complicated system of permits, citizenship, family unification laws and residency permits.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> *No they're simply all (most) arabs.*
> 
> In europe they were targeted as jews, but when they came to Israel suddenly turned europeans??



And right there is your bias.  It's like saying that Europeans are "simply all Europeans".  They aren't.  There is cultural and ethnic variation.


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 18, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The Smoking Gun Arab Immigration into Palestine 1922-1931 Middle East Quarterly

There were migration out of the middle east in the 1880-90 due to disease and in the 1903-30 because of famine.

It is incorrect to believe the arab population was static.  There was also a push of arabs to move to the mandate.

The idea of the holy land being a land without a people was not that far from the truth.  During the 19th C the Ottomans were not getting enough taxes from the area to cover the costs of running it.  Problem was it was a cross road the rest of the empire.  As populations move out, or just moved, there was a need to draw those who would develop the land and invest in businesses and create jobs that contribute to taxes.  Jews had long wanted to move back to their historic and religious homeland, so Ottomans allowed not just jews from other part of the empire but from outside the empire to buy land and open businesses.  Arabs at that time did not have the money, but jews did and their love of the land made it productive in a way it had not been in more than a thousand years.  Jews brought modern ideas and found ways to water the land that had been lacking since the time of the romans.  They clears malaria swamps and cleaned water that had been sources of cholera that had wasted the population away.  Typhoid and yellow fever had been epidemic in the area, but as sanitation and modern hospitals as well as safer food practices changed the area.

There were people in what became the mandate but it was a fraction of what had lived there during roman times.  Most were workers and not owners of the land.  They were beholden to the land owner who more often than not were outsiders from Egypt, Lebanon and other part of what Syria.  There were tribes and bedouins but they did not have permanent homes in the area.  There were mostly herders and move their flocks to new grazing area.  These were not people who could or would develop the land.  Many did not have any national identity nor were they willing to be forced to military service.  To say there were a 'palestinian' people was incorrect.  If they identified with any large place beyond their tribes, it would mostly be syrians as the general area was often referred to under various muslim empires.  They identified by the cities the sanjuks were named after, like city states.  They were not people that had an identity other than speaking arabic and for the most part were muslims.

The idea of a palestinian people came with the mandate as identity cards and even passport came into use.  They were british palestinians and subject to british rules and mix of ottoman and british laws.  Much of what we consider the modern state came from the british but not all arabs were eager to embrace or understand it.

It is hard to explain what live would have been like in the early 20th C but it was a far cry from what we in the west would consider as civilized or organized.  The arab throughout the middle east were far from ready to take on statehood and the turmoil in those days and even today reflect that.  Even from one tribe to another their organization varied widely and rivalries and feuds dominated their ambitions of control.  It was a violent volatile world for them.  Peace in the muslim would had more often than not come by force and was fleeting.

Between the arabs and jews, the jews were better organized and more capable of building a country that could stand on it's own.  A jewish state was far more probable and desirable than the alternative of internal struggles and war between the factions that had dominated so much of the history of the region.  Even during the arab revolts against the Ottomans, it was extremely difficult to unite and organize the arab.  They were often more interested in killing each other than outing the turks.  When they did try to run a city, Damascus, it was an absolute failure.  They were fighting each other and had no understanding if the mechanics of operating the machines for power, water or sewage.  They did not know how to run a hospital, keep streets clean, supplying food or feed the masses.  They were more interested in pillaging the city than running it.

Every state created fell into their own civil wars.  There was no peaceful transition from Ottoman or mandate rule. Sauds over threw the hashimites.  Hashimites were over thrown by various military coups.  Small states were conquered and made into large states.  Land was captured and borders fluctuated.  Families fought within themselves for power............

The idea then of a palestinian state was at best a pipe dream.   Arabs did not want them to have a state, they had desire to take the land as their own or ambitions of a greater arab state.

How much has it all changed?  The region is still struggling with many of the same problems, just the tools of warfare have gotten more deadly.

and the palestinians are little more ready for statehood than they were 70 yrs ago.

the problem was not Israel, it is the people themselves.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 18, 2015)

rylah said:


> jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
> the state becoming official Israel lands. What's mine I can give to anyone.
> Whats trivial?



You just have to realize that taking land and evicting the people that lived on those lands does not endear the people that lived and owned that land to the people who took the land and evicted the people living there.  

They will have hostility towards the people that came from somewhere else and dispossessed them.  It is just human nature.  They don't care if the people that dispossessed them claim to have ancestors that lived there 2000 years ago.  The Roma came from India, they say.  If after WW2 the British decided that the Roma had an historical tie to Delhi and the province and signed a declaration that indicated that a Roma home was to be established in Delhi, do you think the Indians would have agreed?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 So which Jewish country in Europe sent its Jews to colonise Palestine ?       This is what your definition says is the meaning


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What is illicit about calling a spade a spade?  I can't believe you can deny that the Zionists planned to colonize Palestine and colonized it. Even when they state it repeatedly in black and white.  Unbelievable.








 Read the definition again freddy boy and then tell the board which Jewish nation sent its Jews to colonise Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 The truth is he cant stop it can he so the question is moot. He does not have to accept it or recognise it does he, nor does he have to negotiate any mutual borders or lasting peace. He can just sit back and ignore any calls for recognition as the muslims have done over the years. Will the P.A. recognise Israel as the Jewish state and stop all violence and belligerence even though it is part of their National Charter ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...







 He cant stop it, but the Palestinians have no intentions of giving up their hand outs and having to raise their own money so they will keep on blaming the Jews for refusing to allow them to make a state. The gullible are falling for the sob story already


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
> ...







 Why should they as Britain is not the SOVEREIGN power.   But the LoN was the SOVERIEGN power in the M.E. and could dispose of the land as they saw fit. When you stop applying 2015 laws and rules to the situation and look at the semantics then you will realise that you are just spouting Nazi Jew hatred ideology


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 NOPE no cherry picking at all as that was a summation of his reply earlier.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Who was the sovereign power in 1916.   Who was the sovereign power in 1923.    Who had the legal right to dispose of the land in any manner they saw fit ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?
> ...








 SDo when did the arab muslim violence and terrorism start then ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...







 I wonder how many people realise that a Dolphin is an aquatic mammal ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Sovereign powers


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 No start applying 1923 international laws and Sovereignty to the equation, then what the LoN covenant actually says about palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 So what were the names of these Jewish Nations then, and stop hedging when you are losing the argument to facts


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Undermining the historic context.
> ...







 When and why ?   The answers are easy to find in the net if you are honest


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...






\then the same can be said of every nation in the world, as every land has been conquered. But it does not change the reality that the Jewish National Home was granted under existing International law in 1923, and that arab nationalism has tried ever since to destroy it.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I don't think Moroccans believe that they are Palestinians or Syrians.  Arab is a cultural denomination they have a similar language and most the same religion.  It is most similar to Hispanics, a Colombian is not a Spaniard or Argentine.







 They do when they migrate to Palestine to fight against the Jews


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 They had International law of 1923 that gave them sovereignty over the land


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
> ...






 The other 93% was held in trust by the LoN until such time as the inhabitants declared independence. This is what you refuse to accept


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
> ...







 \irrelevant when you consider that the arab muslims were hell bent on taking the land and evicting/mass murdering/enslaving the Jews who had sovereignty over the land. The arab muslims also came from somewhere else and had disp[ossessed the Jews many times in the last 1400 years-

 OFF TOPIC and DEFLECTION as the British are not sovereign owners of India. A better comparison would be if the US government gave your property to a first Nations family


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.




 

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

 Possession is not ownership look up the definition


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


That's what I have always been saying.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...









But ownership is possession and Israel possesses the land it owns


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You just said it wasn't. Make up your mind.


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


The English Empire sent colonists to North America to expand the English Empire. England--not merely some collection of Englishmen--declared sovereignty over the territory it laid claim to; over the colonies it created; over the colonists it sent.
-There was no Jewish Empire.
-There were no citizens of some "Jewish Empire."
-No citizens of some "Jewish Empire" were sent anywhere.
-The non-existent "Jewish Empire" was not expanded by the European Jews who settled in "Palestine."
-Organized Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region.​There was no Jewish Empire; there was no Jewish nation that acquired and settled "Palestine" as part of an imperial, or national expansion. The region known as "Palestine" was patently "up for grabs" when the British mandate expired--evidenced not only by the action of the Jewish Agency, but also by the behavior of the nations surrounding the region. The nation of Israel proclaimed its sovereignty, and validated such sovereignty by successfully defending itself against hostile foreign nations and the belligerents those nations sponsored within Israel.
​


Coyote said:


> Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?


The nation of the United States of America expanded primarily through the purchase of territory from other sovereign nations, through annexation, through cession, through treaty, and through conquest of existing nations. The U.S. treated the "indigenous" peoples of North America with equal disregard, regardless of the attitude those people presented to the U.S.
-The nation of Israel has expanded it's holdings somewhat, as a result of military conflict with the surrounding nations hostile to the existence of Israel. It maintains those holdings through settlement by Israeli citizens.
-The nation of Israel treats non-belligerent indigenous citizens of Israel the same as they treat the non-belligerent naturalized citizens of Israel. Israel asserted at it's founding, a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..." The U.S.? No so much.​I think it's appropriate to assert that generally speaking, belonging to Israel is substantially about being a Jew. You see, regardless of how you wish to parse the term "indigenous", it is inarguable that Jews (not all, obviously) are indigenous to "Palestine"; and Palestinian Jews are just as "indigenous" as Palestinian Arabs. Israel had (and has) an entirely different attitude regarding the "indigenous" peoples of "Palestine", than the U.S. has for the "indigenous" peoples of North America.

So, I think I'll just stand by my earlier statement with regard to your questions: "I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish."


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Europe is not a sovereign nation, Cupcake.

While I admit that Netherlands is in Europe, Europe sent no colonists anywhere... not even to South Africa.

So. What nation were these Jewish "colonists" you refer to citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Well, that's patently disingenuous.

Israel has no sovereign holding that is not maintained and enforced through military force.

Just like every other nation.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 No I said that possession is not ownership, but ownership is possession.     You can own your possessions   but you cant possess what you don't own.

 What this means is the arab muslim possess the land but don't own it while Israel possesses the land it owns


----------



## Coyote (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Please review the definition of colonize - in particular, the highlighted part.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



A colonial enterprise need not be undertaken by a nation, sweetie.  But the Zionist colonists were of various European nationalities, as you well know who were facilitated/financed  by Britain and the Jewish Colonial Trust.     

The British South Africa Company financed the colonization of a large part of Africa and populated the colony with citizens of nearly every nationality known.  

Your dog won't hunt I'm afraid.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Haven't you ever heard of the term [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis']uti possidetis?[/URL]  You can't equate land with complex claims to a modern car.  Much of America was taken from the indiginous peoples through that principle.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



There doesn't NEED to be an empire to colonize.  That's the fallacy in your argument.  The region - up for grabs - as you say, had indiginous peoples already there with claims, again like the Americas.

From Wikipedia (note - the entry has some notes about it's research and lack of enough sourcing but this particular paragraph seems well sourced):

_In 1967 the French historian Maxime Rodinson wrote an article later translated and published in English as Israel: A Colonial Settler-State?[16] Lorenzo Veracini describes Israel as a colonial state and writes that Jewish settlers could expel the British in 1948 only because they had their own colonial relationships inside and outside Israel's new borders.[17] Veracini believes the possibility of an Israeli disengagement is always latent and this relationship could be severed, through an "accommodation of a Palestinian Israeli autonomy within the institutions of the Israeli state" (Veracini 2006)[18] Other commentators, such as Daiva Stasiulis, Nira Yuval-Davis,[19] and Joseph Massad in the "Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/ Israel in the persistence of the Palestinian Question".[20] have included Israel in their global analysis of settler societies. Ilan Pappé describes Zionism and Israel in similar terms.[21] Scholar Amal has stated, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".[22]_​
Israel continues to act like a colonial power with it's encourgement of Jewish immigration, refusal to return occupied territories and it's expansion of "settlers" into those occupied territories.  It mirrors the American experience only instead of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of Christianity, it's Zionism and the expansion of Judaism as the expense of the original inhabitants.
​


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?
> ...


​On the paper, that sounds just super but in practice and in the actual legal and political system, it is false.

This is evident by the inequities in the justice system, building and expansion permits, educational funding, ability to travel, family reunification, immigration, where they can live, and the different levels of citizenship.
​


> I think it's appropriate to assert that generally speaking, belonging to Israel is substantially about being a Jew. You see, regardless of how you wish to parse the term "indigenous", it is inarguable that Jews (not all, obviously) are indigenous to "Palestine"; and Palestinian Jews are just as "indigenous" as Palestinian Arabs.* Israel had (and has) an entirely different attitude regarding the "indigenous" peoples of "Palestine", than the U.S. has for the "indigenous" peoples of North America.*
> 
> So, I think I'll just stand by my earlier statement with regard to your questions: "I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish."



I absolutely agree that indiginous Palestinian Jews are as indiginous as indiginous Palestinian Arabs.  And no, Israel does not have an "entirely different attitude" regarding indigenous peoples as the US - only when those indiginous peoples are Jews.  The building and expansion of settlements (and the comparable squeezing and curtailing of any expansion of Arab villages, restrictions on where they are allowed to live and demolishing of their homes) is not too different than the American treatment of indiginous people.  Palestinians are being squeezed into ever more fragmented areas.  It kind of resembles the reservation system or even the "black homeland" system of aparthied South Africa - both, a common attribute of colonialism.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


It was an inside job. The yet to be named state of Israel was created inside Palestine under the wing (or the gun) of the British in the mandate period.

"In the life of the Jewish community, the Jewish Agency occupies a special place in virtue both of its status under article 4 of the Mandate and as a representative organization of world Jewry. Organized in Palestine into some 20 departments corresponding in general to the departments of State in a self-governing country, the Agency concerns itself with every aspect of Jewish economic and social development in Palestine and exercises a decisive influence in major questions of policy and administration, particularly in regard to immigration and agricultural development.

"The Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) is thus a highly organized and closely knit society which, partly on a basis of communal effort, has created a national life distinctive enough to merit the Royal Commission's title of a State within a State ..." 36/
- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part II 1947-1977 30 June 1979 ​
The Zionists imported settlers from wherever they could find them and created or expand the colonies. In 1947 the yet to be named Israel conscripted settlers into its military and proceeded to cleanse Palestine of its native inhabitants. Over 300,000 Palestinians were dispossessed before Israel's declaration of independence.

The foreign Jewish Agency, that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization, declared Israel's independence. Of the thirty seven people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers. Israel's intended population was recently imported settlers.

Israel is a settler colonial project occupying Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 First entry is

* (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.



 So my question stands which Jewish nation sent colonists to palestine*


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Read the definition again as it clearly states the colonists must come from a specified nation. So which European Jewish nations sent their people to colonise palestine


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Not to mention the financing for the colonization provided by the Jewish Colonial Trust.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



This too, is in the definition:

*come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
"a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"*


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law




 The land passed from one sovereign power to another who partitioned the land and passed sovereignty to other parties. In the case of Jewish Palestine it was granted to the Jews for their national home. International law of 1923 allowed this to happen, if it didn't then none of the Islamic nations are valid.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 Your source is islamonazi propaganda so is not valid as evidence.  The rest of your post is just propaganda


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


It pretty much does, Cupcake.

When a sovereign nation charters an organization with colonizing new territory, that colonial enterprise is still considered undertaken by that nation.



montelatici said:


> But the Zionist colonists were of various European nationalities, as you well know who were facilitated/financed  by Britain and the Jewish Colonial Trust.


"Palestine" was not a British colony.

Nation-building. You're talking about nation-building.

Financing colonists is not colonizing.



montelatici said:


> The British South Africa Company financed the colonization of a large part of Africa and populated the colony with citizens of nearly every nationality known.
> 
> Your dog won't hunt I'm afraid.


Financing colonists is not colonizing. And South Africa was colonized by the Dutch.

You're only about 200 years off. No bad for you.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 No it is an example of aggressive invasion under the banner of colonisation, which is what monte claims happened in Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


Even if it is all true.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



No, South Africa was colonized by the  Vereenigde Landsche Ge-Oktroyeerde Oostindische Compagnie or "Dutch East India Company" which brought settlers from all over Europe and Asia to the colony.

You are just making a fool of yourself insisting that Zionists who called themselves colonists were not colonists.  It's silly really.

It isn't a runner, trust me sweetie.


----------



## fanger (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

Coyote said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


_"Israel continues to act like a colonial power..." _and dolphins continue to act like fish... you know, swimming and such.




Coyote said:


> > Coyote said:
> >
> >
> > > Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?
> ...


You're talking about a nation that, for practical purposes, has been under a state of continuous martial law because of the hostility the neighboring nations hold to the existence of Israel. Hostility those same states cultivated in a specific segment of the "indigenous" population, a hostility that those same nations continue to cultivate in the progeny of that segment.

So yeah. It didn't work out as intended, but the intent is still there, and the source of the social/political/economic stratification you cite has more to do with one's "belligerent" status, and less to do with one's "indigenous" status.
​


Coyote said:


> > I think it's appropriate to assert that generally speaking, belonging to Israel is substantially about being a Jew. You see, regardless of how you wish to parse the term "indigenous", it is inarguable that Jews (not all, obviously) are indigenous to "Palestine"; and Palestinian Jews are just as "indigenous" as Palestinian Arabs.* Israel had (and has) an entirely different attitude regarding the "indigenous" peoples of "Palestine", than the U.S. has for the "indigenous" peoples of North America.*
> >
> > So, I think I'll just stand by my earlier statement with regard to your questions: "I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish."
> 
> ...


HAHAHA! Does cognitive dissonance just make you high, or what?

I swear to God everybody, I did not coach him in any way!



Coyote said:


> The building and expansion of settlements (and the comparable squeezing and curtailing of any expansion of Arab villages, restrictions on where they are allowed to live and demolishing of their homes) is not too different than the American treatment of indiginous people.  Palestinians are being squeezed into ever more fragmented areas.  It kind of resembles the reservation system or even the "black homeland" system of aparthied South Africa - both, a common attribute of colonialism.


Yes. "It resembles..." like dolphins resemble fish.


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


And from where did the VOC get the charter that authorized the colonization of South Africa?

Was it the European Jewish Empire, Cupcake?



montelatici said:


> You are just making a fool of yourself insisting that Zionists who called themselves colonists were not colonists.  It's silly really.
> 
> It isn't a runner, trust me sweetie.


You can call yourself whatever you like, Cupcake. Call yourself Caitlyn; declare yourself Dragon-kin, if you like. Whatever.


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


I take your point. I don't care about the "not born in Palestine" business (it ends up just being meaningless), and I disagree with your use of the term "cleanse," but I take your point. It's a good one... one that I've been considering for a while.

You may have missed that my objection to the term "colonist" is the imperialist baggage attached to the term. Settler-colonialism is a different animal from Imperial-colonialism.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



There was no charter for colonizing South Africa for the Dutch East India Company,  The company's charter was exclusive to  Asia. The Cape was a private initiative, originally a way station.

The colonizer need not be a state or empire.  I have no idea where you got that absurd idea. 

But if you want a charter, the British with the Balfour Declaration provided the charter for the colonization of Palestine by the Jews.


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 19, 2015)

fanger said:


>



Ouch, less than a pin prick.  Think about what was happening to the jew.  Think about all the anti-semitic propaganda an libels being published. 

There was no war on germany, it was nazi PR against the jews


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



I can agree with settler colonialism with Imperial assistance. LOL


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


The VOC's charter was not exclusive to Asia, but rather exclusive to the boundaries described by the charter... which included, The Cape.

That charter empowered the VOC to establish colonies...which were under the sovereign dominion of an as-of-yet unidentified Jewish nation the Netherlands.

Sorry about your luck.



montelatici said:


> The colonizer need not be a state or empire.  I have no idea where you got that absurd idea.


Colony: "_a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation._"

FYI: Absurd: "_utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false_"​


montelatici said:


> But if you want a charter, the British with the Balfour Declaration provided the charter for the colonization of Palestine by the Jews.


Nation building... not the same as colonization.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Now you are being silly.  I don't think it's necessary to beat a dead horse.  The Zionists were self proclaimed colonists and it isn't a coincidence that the colonization process was administered by the British Colonial Office.


----------



## LOki (Jun 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


It's pure coincidence.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 19, 2015)

LOki said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...


LOL


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AGAIN FREDDY BOY is this in your Nazi Jew Hatred book for boys as one of the rules of disinformation


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

fanger said:


>






 YES    and      we know all about that, it was BDS 1930's style aimed at the Nazi regime


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

NOPE the Balfour declaration was not a Charter for anything, and stop blaming the British for the arab muslims failings and your own religions failings. The British did not have any authority other than what the terms of the Mandate gave them, and they were not that many


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Which did not take place. What did take place was invited migration to make the land fertile and productive by the sovereign owners of Palestine


----------



## Humanity (Jun 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Think you might find that it was an answer to to direct question


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 Then you will be able to produce the transcript or video of the questioning ?


----------



## quorthon (Jun 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > xdangerousxdavex said:
> ...


Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2015)

quorthon said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


Which Arabs?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> quorthon said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






 The arabs that migrated and colonised the whole of the M.E of course


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 20, 2015)

quorthon said:


> Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.


If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the  Zionist migration.  Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> quorthon said:
> 
> 
> > Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.
> ...



This is how ridiculous your logic is:

Before European Jews migrated to the region, there was no major violence between Jews and Arabs (which is false BTW), therefore European migration to the region is the cause of the violence. 

The cause of the violence was Arabs massacring Jews on several occasions, way before Israel was even established.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 20, 2015)

There was very little violence between the Arab Jews, Arab Christians and the Arab Muslims of Palestine before the Europeans began migrating in the mid 1850s.  Any violence was between Palestinian Arabs and Europeans, not Arab Jews unless they allied themselves with the Europeans.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2015)

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > quorthon said:
> ...


The Shaw Commission observed:


"In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.
- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1517 Hebron attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1834 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There was very little violence between the Arab Jews, Arab Christians and the Arab Muslims of Palestine before the Europeans began migrating in the mid 1850s.  Any violence was between Palestinian Arabs and Europeans, *not Arab Jews unless they allied themselves with the Europeans*.



Can you document this ?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 20, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



PF Tinmore documented it earlier linking a UN document.  You posted Wiki Hasbara propaganda which the Hasbara team edits.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What are you, stupid? I posted links to documented attacks. Are you saying they never happened?


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It's posts like this Monti that really expose you for the lying propagandist that you are. Think about what you just posted. Oh, and Tinmore uses Wiki all the time as well. However, what site was used has nothing to do with anything. Google the attacks that I posted, you will find multiple links about them.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 20, 2015)

Tilmore posted a link to a UN document in this case.  I don't use wiki as you well know.  I did google the items.  All Hasbara propaganda.  Not one neutral site confirms the bullshit you link to.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 20, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



I said that the violence was between native people and against settlers from outside Palestine.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Tilmore posted a link to a UN document in this case.  I don't use wiki as you well know.  I did google the items.  All Hasbara propaganda.  Not one neutral site confirms the bullshit you link to.



You are such an idiot who really cannot handle the truth. What does it matter if Tinmore posted a UN document? I posted links to documented attacks that refute his post. 
Are you telling me these attacks never happened?


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

1834 looting of Safed - awesomely interesting facts images videos

1834 Hebron massacre

Translation of 1517 Hebron pogrom in English

You see Monti, you cannot handle the truth. It simply does not fit with your agenda


----------



## montelatici (Jun 20, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Tilmore posted a link to a UN document in this case.  I don't use wiki as you well know.  I did google the items.  All Hasbara propaganda.  Not one neutral site confirms the bullshit you link to.
> ...



You posted links to Wiki that are not reliable when it comes to partisan issues as Hasbara edits them constantly to promote the Zionist agenda.  The violence was between the locals and Jewish settlers from outside of Palestine.  Safed had experienced an influx of Jews from Algeria, Morocco, Europe etc.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



I posted links to documented attacks. Wiki can be edited by ANYONE, not just pro Israelis, so your arguments is useless. Tinmore posted that there were no incidents of violence against Jews by Arabs prior to 1917. I refuted that, and your inability to handle facts got in the way and you clearly got pissed off. So you resorted to your usual "Wikipedia Habara ahhhhh!!" ur "
Instead, why don't you make an effort to refute my posts. Your Hasbara accusations don't work on me.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

BTW, the Wiki articles have sources that are linked at the bottom. For example:

One a Day An Anthology of Jewish Historical Anniversaries for Every Day of ... - Abraham P. Bloch - Google Books


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Tilmore posted a link to a UN document in this case.  I don't use wiki as you well know.  I did google the items.  All Hasbara propaganda.  Not one neutral site confirms the bullshit you link to.
> ...


No they didn't.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Oh really? How do you figure?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Nothing happened back 80 years as I posted.


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I posted several links to attacks that did happen. You have not refuted them. 
How can you be so stupid to post " No they didn't happen"


----------



## montelatici (Jun 20, 2015)

There was conflict between both the settlers and the native people.  If the settlers had not been there, there would not have been conflict.


----------



## Humanity (Jun 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Already been done on a different thread idiot!

So, how about you go watch the video and then come back and tell me what he says!


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> What are you, stupid? I posted links to documented attacks. Are you saying they never happened?


You posted links prior to the Zionist migration.  The most recent being 1834.  So, almost 100 years went by with no major outbreaks of violence. 

That all changed when Zionists showed up with their racist, apartheid policies.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> quorthon said:
> 
> 
> > Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.
> ...







 Once again you ignore the history of islam and what it did in the 7C to the Jews in the M.E. That is when the problems started with the mass murders and rapes of the Jews. Because they would not convert to islam and swell his ranks and coffers he issued a command from allah to KILL ALL THE UNBELIEVERS. From that day on there have been thousands of recorded incidents of muslims attacking the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There was very little violence between the Arab Jews, Arab Christians and the Arab Muslims of Palestine before the Europeans began migrating in the mid 1850s.  Any violence was between Palestinian Arabs and Europeans, not Arab Jews unless they allied themselves with the Europeans.







BULLSHIT  the Koran tells of attacks on the Jews in the 7C and the command from allah to KILL THE UNBELIEVERS.   This includes the Christians.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...








 Islamonazi propaganda group so not a valid source.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 From a islamonazi source, which you have been told about before so not valid or believable.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 NO a newspaper article is not first hand evidence, it is fiction.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > What are you, stupid? I posted links to documented attacks. Are you saying they never happened?
> ...






 Do you even know when the Zionists first started to arrive in Palestine dumbo


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Tilmore posted a link to a UN document in this case.  I don't use wiki as you well know.  I did google the items.  All Hasbara propaganda.  Not one neutral site confirms the bullshit you link to.







 Which means nothing does it, because it is in the UN archives it does not make it true. The group that wrote the report is Palestinian and islamonazi so pushed their lies and propaganda. You believe it because you have been brainwashed to believe it because it is a racist attack on the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 And the settlers were arab muslims  from outside Palestine who where going to steal Jewish land once it was made fertile again


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Can you prove it then using non partisan sources


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Using a partisan islamonazi source for your evidence, so making your post invalid


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There was conflict between both the settlers and the native people.  If the settlers had not been there, there would not have been conflict.







 So the arab muslims should have stayed away then


----------



## Humanity (Jun 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Really Phoney.... HAHAHA...

Go watch the video of the interview!

Worried you are going to end up looking like an idiot AGAIN? HAHAHA


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...









 LINK


----------



## Humanity (Jun 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Go and find it you dumbass, it's been posted in another thread not that long ago!


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...




So in other words you don't have a link, figures


----------



## Humanity (Jun 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



So you can't be bothered to go and look for the link that was posted VERY recently in another thread... Figures!

If you can't be bothered to educate yourself Phoney don't expect others to do it for you!


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...








 So in other words you don't have a link, figures


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



quit whining


----------



## Humanity (Jun 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



No Phoney, you don't have the mental capacity to go and look for it...


----------



## Humanity (Jun 21, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You need to tell your mentally challenged, dumbass friend to do that...

I told him the video is here...


----------



## theliq (Jun 22, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> 
> I believe Israel don’t have any goal to conquer more territory or to eliminate all the arabs around Israel. I believe Mr.Prager. Don’t you think he’s right? If you don’t, show your vision of the problem.


Thanks for your comment.....You are a Joke


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Jun 22, 2015)

theliq said:


> Thanks for your comment.....You are a Joke


Sorry? Do you have something to add as your comment? Or just thread crapping?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 So in other words you don't have a link, figures.     And you don't have the mental capacity to work that one out


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2015)

Humanity said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 Temper, temper  you know you will only make yourself sick carrying on like this all the time


----------



## Humanity (Jun 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



You would be funny if you weren't so stupid!

It's rude to laugh at the afflicted! 

Now. go find the video like a good child and watch what Netanyahu actually said, there's a clever boy


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 23, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



I don't think Phoenell knows Hebrew.  I could barely make it out, and I learned Hebrew for alot of years.


----------



## Humanity (Jun 23, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Perhaps not but he could read the translation that you gracefully gave us...

Ignorance is no defense for stupidity!


----------



## rylah (Jun 23, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > *No they're simply all (most) arabs.*
> ...




Well show me the bias after You speak to an Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi and Lebanese  representatives,
they themselves recognize themselves as "ARABS".
Heard of the "ARAB LEAGUE"?

So is it my biased attitude calling them arabs or they themselves?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 23, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Yes.  And Europeans recognize themselves as Europeans. Ever heard of the EU?

So naturally, Italians are the same as Poles and Greeks are the same as Germans.


----------



## rylah (Jun 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
> ...



Well if we're talking about those sold land and not the ones taken in war,
then tell me how do You understand the term "SELLING" or "CONTRACT"?
Do understand it like Arafat did? Signing an agreement merely to have an opportunity to break it...well like
Hamas that breaks every cease fire.
Of course those peasants and slaves will be angry after their masters treat them like they did-
sell their "workplace" and give 'em the finger.

A contract is still a contract even if such a word does not exist in arab's lexicon.

"Yeah but they re crying daily....forgive them the contracts and liabilities..." Sure where do I sign?
Somebody has to eat the cake and leave it whole...


----------



## rylah (Jun 23, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




So You say Lebanon and Egypt are on the same continent?
Flawed logic because Europeans call themselves so for living on the same CONtINENT.

balestinians ARE arabs as their Jordan and Egyptian brothers and many more around Israel.

So how am I biased except for my life?


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 23, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Not all egyptian nor Lebanese would call themselves arabs.  They speak arabic but they are not all arabs.
There are syrian that also do not think they are arabs, but most do.  Saudis are arab but often identify by tribes as well.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 23, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



No, I'm saying that they are not the same.  All people of Arab-origin are not the same just like all Europeans are not the same.


----------



## rylah (Jun 23, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Yeah yeah let's dance with words, "All people of Arab-origin" are ARABS.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 23, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



They differ from each other culturally and how they identify themselves.

Are all Europeans the same?


----------



## rylah (Jun 23, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Really round 2? 
Europeans live wait for it...wait for it....O THE SAME CONTiNEnT.

Arabs who live n different continents- Africa and Asia do define themselves as ARABS
through the ARAB LEAGUE, nationalities have nothing to do with that.


----------



## rylah (Jun 24, 2015)

fanger said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more, aggressive wars" peace would follow which would not suit the israeli leaders who govern through fear of attack



Well You know a famous phrase among muslim countries suggests very subtly:
"First comes Saturday-Shabbas then comes Sunday"...take Your time to really perceive what t means.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...








So in other words you don't have a link, figures. And you don't have the mental capacity to work that one out


----------



## Coyote (Jun 24, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Arabs who live on the same continent may call themselves Arabs (just like Europeans that live on the same continent call themselves Europeans and define themselves through the EU) but they aren't all culturally  the same.  It's not rocket science dude.


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Jun 24, 2015)

Some more proofs here
The Jewish Press How to Fight the Anti-Israel Propaganda


----------



## montelatici (Jun 24, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> Some more proofs here
> The Jewish Press How to Fight the Anti-Israel Propaganda



You mean the Zionist propaganda factory. LOL


----------



## fanger (Jun 24, 2015)

They are not proof's, they are someone's   hasbara


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 24, 2015)

rylah said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more, aggressive wars" peace would follow which would not suit the israeli leaders who govern through fear of attack
> ...



I think the saying is this:  "First we will kill the Saturday people, then we will kill the Sunday people".


----------



## fanger (Jun 24, 2015)

First comes friday, if you didn't invade and occupy their country then you have nothing to fear


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 24, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



heard it many times, in mosques and at rallies.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 24, 2015)

fanger said:


> First comes friday, if you didn't invade and occupy their country then you have nothing to fear



They have more than enough countries.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > First comes friday, if you didn't invade and occupy their country then you have nothing to fear
> ...


Why don't we throw everyone out of new Jersey and give it to Israel?

They have more than enough states.


----------



## toastman (Jun 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



Really? THAT'S your comparison??


----------



## fanger (Jun 25, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Really, how many times have you been to a Mosque?


----------



## Indofred (Jun 25, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”



So let all the Jews fuck off to America, then you can skip the mass murder part - well, until Americans get pissed off at them.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 25, 2015)

Notice the bit about the UN dividing the land - no fucker asked the people who lived there.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Humanity said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 Remember that the next time you make one of your outlandish claims.

 You made a comment so it is up to you to provide the evidence, you refuse so this shows that your comment was a lie


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 No we don't we recognise ourselves as British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish etc.

 The EU is the Economic Union of Europe that is splitting apart because of left wing interference. The Greeks will soon be leaving with massive debts because they relied on outdated left wing polices. The UK is to hold a referendum on leaving the EU in 2017 and it looks like a landslide yes vote.

 We still have the rivalries and enemies we had before the EU came into existence, which means the French still block UK goods at their borders


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 I don't see myself as European, or British sometimes not even English. But I do see myself as a Yorkshire man born and bred. And that is how 99% of Europeans see themselves, we have no commonality just as Americans have no commonality either


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Are all Caucasians not Caucasians.
 Are all Negro's not Negro's

That is the difference between Europeans and arabs, arabs are a race with racial characteristics, Europeans are just people from Europe of many races, cultures and creeds


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Indofred said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...







 Why . Why cant the arabs go back to Arabia where they came from. That would cause a massive drop in mass murder by islamonazisin the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Indofred said:


> Notice the bit about the UN dividing the land - no fucker asked the people who lived there.






They did not want to take part in any discussions, they just wanted it all as shown by the minutes in montes LoN links.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...







 Far too many, but not since the Chanel 4 documentary exposing the radical teachings in Britain's mosques


----------



## Indofred (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> They did not want to take part in any discussions, they just wanted it all as shown by the minutes in montes LoN links.



Well, it did belong to them.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Indofred said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > They did not want to take part in any discussions, they just wanted it all as shown by the minutes in montes LoN links.
> ...






Who signed the treaty for the ottomans giving it to them before 1917


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



Quit a few times, but in the middle east you only need to turn on the radio.  There are tapes available of the weeks prayers and speakers.  In some mosques there is a TV or speakers in the women's area.  Some mosques allow women in the main room at the back of the room.
Even a non muslim can stand at the door or just inside and watch.  You can hear prayers and speeches outside most mosques.  Many places have the overflow pray in the streets.  Most mosques have loud speakers from the minarets so everyone in the neighborhood can hear.

You don't question what is said in the mosques but you question my presence in a mosque?  Inside or outside what is said is still incitement against others of the book.


----------



## Humanity (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Phoney, if you cannot be bothered to go look at the video then why the fuck should I bother posting you dumb fucking idiot!


----------



## Humanity (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



Can't understand Hebrew then Phoney? LOL

You will find a very nice translation of the video, if you can be bothered to look 

You have made NO effort against my comment, nor the video... You give no supporting evidence to your stupid comments....


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 So in other words you don't have a link, figures. And you don't have the mental capacity to work that one out.

 Nor work out that you are having a major hissy fit and meltdown


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...








 You made the comment so it is up to you to provide the link, not have a hissy fit and meltdown when asked for the link to substantiate your claims


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Jun 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > Some more proofs here
> ...


Sorry, dude, but Zionist propaganda is the weapon Jews fight with too. If you don't believe it, then it's just your ideological choice.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 25, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > xdangerousxdavex said:
> ...



That former Miss Israel, who's an Arab, is kinda hot.  toastman, what do you think?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...





If they are a race then like caucasians and negros - there is considerable cultural variation.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > xdangerousxdavex said:
> ...



Why can't the Europeans go back where they came from?


----------



## fanger (Jun 25, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


Do you speak Arabic?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



From what I could glean, aris has been around some.  Not everyone here is American or has never travelled...  Anyway, she will answer yes, obviously.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







Culture is not racial or all negro's would have the same culture. As I said I am a European in name only I don't have the same culture as the French, Germans, Italians etc. even the Scots, Irish and Welsh have a different culture to the English and we all live on the same Island

 BUT WE ARE ALL THE SAME RACE CAUCASION


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...






 Under the UN rules that the arabs decide are the only criteria any person living in Israel for 2 years is an Israeli. But yes why cant the Europeans in America go back to where they belong. You cant differentiate between continents as that would be RACIST IN THE EXTREME, so you have to apply your rules to all European migrations


----------



## fanger (Jun 25, 2015)

yea and some of us are slimmer than others


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...







 can you understand Arabic other than what is taught in Koran classes


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> yea and some of us are slimmer than others





 And others are more intelligent, in fact intelligent enough to not data mine and troll after being censured for it just recently


----------



## fanger (Jun 25, 2015)

under israeli law anyone who claims to be of the jewish religion has a right to become an israeli, even if they come from east europe


----------



## fanger (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > yea and some of us are slimmer than others
> ...


who pulled your chain? i didn't mention any name


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> under israeli law anyone who claims to be of the jewish religion has a right to become an israeli, even if they come from east europe






 Bit more to it than that isn't there ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 25, 2015)

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...





 Did I ?..........seems that you have a guilty conscience


----------



## Coyote (Jun 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I think we are same the same thing essentially.  Arabs vary - they aren't all the same culture.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 The vast majority of arabs follow Islamic culture, the tiny portion who are not muslim still have to follow Islamic culture


----------



## rylah (Jun 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




So what about arabs in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria? Same continent? 
It's not rocket science, but You seem to loose the initial point of argument. They are all arabs.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 26, 2015)

It's like saying "they are all Hispanics".  Someone from Argentina is different culturally than someone from Honduras.


----------



## rylah (Jun 26, 2015)

fanger said:


> First comes friday, if you didn't invade and occupy their country then you have nothing to fear



Yeah say that to those tourists from Tunisia who must have invaded some country, who were just armless lying in the sun...

At least 28 killed as gunmen attack beach outside 2 tourist hotels in Tunisia RT News
Man beheaded several injured in Islamist attack on French gas factory RT News

Or they kill their muslim "brothers" because some land in dispute? No it's simply a religious racist war You support:
25 dead 200 injured in Shiite mosque blast in Kuwait ISIS claims responsibility VIDEO RT News


----------



## rylah (Jun 26, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It's like saying "they are all Hispanics".  Someone from Argentina is different culturally than someone from Honduras.



Good luck trying...read the argument from the beginning.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 26, 2015)

I did.  Try improving your reading comprehension.


----------



## rylah (Jun 26, 2015)

fanger said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



It's doesn't matter to those wahabbi afghans who kill in the name of allah and don't know any arabic.


----------



## rylah (Jun 26, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I did.  Try improving your reading comprehension.



 I'm not the one posting documents that discredit my own point of view.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



That's like saying the vast majority of Europeans follow Christian culture.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 26, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Just like they're all Europeans.  It's not "rocket science" but it's misleading.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Coyote and/or rylah--Have either of you ever been to various European and/or Arab countries?  That's the only way to make a definitive decision about this issue.  I read an article this week about when Paul McCartney first played a concert in Israel.  He reportedly said, "I've heard many things about Israel, but hearing about it, and actually experiencing it, are two different things."


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 26, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It's like saying "they are all Hispanics".  Someone from Argentina is different culturally than someone from Honduras.






If you cant work it out then it is time to stop posting out of your league


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Not even close as the arabs see themselves as all being arabs, it is arab nationality disease that caused the conflict in the first place. The Europeans see themselves as separate nationalities and have their own culture. Just as the Americans have different nationalities and cultures that don't mix. In the UK the migrant cultures have mixed with UK culture to produce a cuisine and fashion distinctive to the rest of the world. ALL BUT ISLAM THAT KEEPS ITSELF ALOOF AND APART FROM THE REST OF THE UK


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 Not at all as it is not a fundamental part of their culture to be of just one religion, and enforce it in their laws.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 26, 2015)

Yes at all.  Europe is very Christian in culture and there are many who are intolerant of other religions.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



There is a European "identity" expressed through the EU.  The countries in western Europe share many commonalities - religion, political systems and cultural traditions.  There also seperate nationalities/ethnic groups/cultural differences.  They are all dominant Christian.

"Arabs" are defined as: Arabs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_*Arabs* (Arabic: عرب‎, ʿarab) are a major panethnic group.[14] They primarily inhabit Western Asia, North Africa, parts of the Horn of Africa, and other areas in the Arab world. *Arabic-speaking populations in general are a highly heterogeneous collection of peoples, with different ancestral origins and identities.* The ties that bind the Arab peoples are a veneer of shared heritage by virtue of common linguistic, cultural, and political traditions. As such, Arab identity is based on one or more of genealogical, linguistic or cultural grounds,[15] although with competing identities often taking a more prominent role,[16] based on considerations including regional, national, clan, kin, sect, and tribe affiliations and relationships. If the Arab panethnicity is regarded as a single population, then it constitutes one of the world's largest groups after Han Chinese.


The Arabian Peninsula itself was not entirely originally Arab. Arabization occurred in some parts of the Arabian Peninsula. For example, the language shift to Arabic displaced the indigenous South Semitic Old South Arabian languages of modern-day Yemen and southern Oman. These were the languages spoken in the civilisations of Sheba, Ubar, Magan, Dilmun, and Meluhha—which were spread via migrants from the Arabian peninsula, together with written script, in the 8th and 7th centuries BC to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia)._​

Like with Africa, I think we just assume that they are all "pretty much the same"...we're just very ethnocentric and blind to the differences.


----------



## Humanity (Jun 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Phoney, if you are the only person on this board who has not seen the link then that is YOUR issue NOT mine


----------



## Humanity (Jun 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> I do see myself as a Yorkshire man born and bred



Aha... Figures!


----------



## Humanity (Jun 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



What a stupid comparison!

Are all carrots not carrots?
Are all onions not onions?

WTF?!?!


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 27, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 You do know about the animosity between Catholics and Protestants I take it, and how it rampant in Europe. Imagine N.I. only spread across Europe, so no commonality of religion. Then there are the offshoots of religion that caused the colonisation of America in the first place, the Lutherans and Quakers. There is no European identity as we are not a concerted whole, but disjointed and separate. We don't even have a common language or culture to bind us together. We are still fighting the last lot of wars. Don't try and see Europe as a federal nation like America as we will never be like that


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...








So in other words you don't have a link, figures. And you don't have the mental capacity to work that one out.

Nor work out that you are having a major hissy fit and meltdown


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 NO they are not as we have made carrots and onions into poor images of the originals. Now carrots are more like cattle food and onions are tasteless bulbs.

 Unless you want to prove Europeans are a race


----------



## Humanity (Jun 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Link has been provided...

Step away from the computer, put your flat cap on and take your whippets for a nice walk, there's a good Phoney!


----------



## toastman (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What are you talking about.  Hopefully, they can work out a peaceful solution, but to say that the Palestinians should accept the blame for being colonized is absolutely ridiculous.  The original problem is the movement of Europeans to Palestine with the intention of removing the inhabitants.



There you go with that Palestinian propaganda again. That was not the intention of the European Jews. Their intention was to escape anti Semitism and create  Jewish homeland for themselves. It was the intention of the Arabs to get rid of the Jews from the region.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about.  Hopefully, they can work out a peaceful solution, but to say that the Palestinians should accept the blame for being colonized is absolutely ridiculous.  The original problem is the movement of Europeans to Palestine with the intention of removing the inhabitants.
> ...



Propaganda? The Zionists stated what they intended to do clearly.  Toast, look up cognitive dissonance.

*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ*
July 25, 1926

"The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group, the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered."


Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing ServicesShare on emailShare on print



London (Jul. 23)


----------



## toastman (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Ya right, that's why Israel gave back the Sinai, offered to give back the entire Golan and have made several offers to return virtually the entire West Bank. They also withdrew their troops and settlers from Gaza. Ya, some colonization 

But since you are allergic to the truth , you're going to continue to spew your usual propaganda. That's just who you are Monti, a propagandist and a liar.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



How can I be a liar and propagandist when I simply posted the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article of 1926?  You are becoming unsettled Toast.  You are another poster boy for cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 27, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...









So in other words you don't have a link, figures. And you don't have the mental capacity to work that one out.

Nor work out that you are having a major hissy fit and meltdown


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 If you cant work that one out then you are a bigger dunce than I first thought


----------



## toastman (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Read my post again. I never denied what you posted concerning the quote.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

What does "Ya, some colonization" followed by an emoticom mean?


----------



## toastman (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What does "Ya, some colonization" followed by an emoticom mean?



Do I really need to explain my post to you Monti ?


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What does "Ya, some colonization" followed by an emoticom mean?
> ...



You made my point.  You deny that it was colonization even though the Zionists themselves knew it was colonization. That's called cognitive dissonance.


----------



## toastman (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



I just proved that Israel had no intent on colonizing land. My earlier post clearly explains that.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



How did you prove that the Zionists had no intention of colonizing Palestine?  Are you trying to imply that Israel does not want to colonize more territory in Palestine?  If so, you would be wrong again, the settlements would make such an assertion ridiculous.


----------



## toastman (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



If they were going to colonize Palestine, them why did they withdraw their settlers and troops from Gaza? Why did they offer to return virtually the entire West Bank several times?
Israel did not annex the West Bank, therefore the settlements could potentially be dismantled in a future deal. Now, are there Israeli citizens and government officials who WANT all of Palestine to be Israel? For sure, but guess what, I want a Boston Whaler 345 Conquest Pilot House. 
Israel could colonize all of Palestine if they wanted, but instead they have tried to make peace with the Palestinians who have refused every offer.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

Wow, that's a leap.  Let me get this straight.  The Zionists did not intend to colonize Palestine because they only colonized a large part of it.  Setting aside that they control all of Palestine and the Israeli PM has stated that there will be no Palestinian state, most of Palestine was, in fact colonized.  Your dog won't hunt.


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...




Jews came and bought land but palestinians decided those sales were null and void on the basis that the buyers were jewish.
They had not problem taking an inflated amount of money for the land but then tried to fine a way to weasel out and get the now developed land back without returning the money.

Land that the palestinians would not or could not develop or pay taxes on that might have been occupied for a few years or generations is not vastly more valuable now than when they sold it or walk away from it almost 3/4 of a century ago

Many could have returned and become Israelis, but their hate kept them from reentering Israel, or fear of other palestininas prevented them from trying.
150,000 did return over the years through reunification and other programs.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 27, 2015)

Setting aside the fact that these were Europeans with the intent to colonize Palestine, you are making things up as Zionists do. Nothing of sort happened.  The Europeans did buy some land but the non-Jews still owned at least 85% of the land at the time of partition. 

"_164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "_

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

The Christians and Muslims were prevented from returning to their homes by the Jews that had expelled them by the Israeli imposition of the the Absentees’ Property Law, 5710- 1950.  You can look it up, but in short it says that any Palestinian that left between 1947 and 1950 lost his home and land to the Jewish state.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Setting aside the fact that these were Europeans with the intent to colonize Palestine, you are making things up as Zionists do. Nothing of sort happened.  The Europeans did buy some land but the non-Jews still owned at least 85% of the land at the time of partition.
> 
> "_164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "_
> 
> ...


Then Israel colonized that Palestinian land and built settlements.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 27, 2015)

montelatici, et al,

Well, this is not exactly accurate and some what exaggerated.



montelatici said:


> Wow, that's a leap.  Let me get this straight.  The Zionists did not intend to colonize Palestine because they only colonized a large part of it.  Setting aside that they control all of Palestine and the Israeli PM has stated that there will be no Palestinian state, most of Palestine was, in fact colonized.  Your dog won't hunt.


*(COMMENT)*

Some salient points under Mandate:

Not all Jewish Immigrants were Zionist.
Jewish immigration was encourage.
Immigration included all Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.  
In co-operation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by Jews on the land, west of the Jordan River.
Some salient points after Mandate:

The Jewish Agency completed the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence.
In 1949 the Gaza Strip came under the administration of the All Palestine Government _(dissolved in 1959)_ controlled by the Egyptian Military Governorship.
In 1950, the West Bank _(Unification of the Two Banks)_ became sovereign Jordanian Territory.
On 5 June 1967, hostilities broke out between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. By the time a ceasefire called for by the Security Council was accepted by the parties, Israeli military forces had occupied the Egyptian Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and part of the Syrian Golan Heights.
1997 Oslo II - Area C under full Israeli civil and security control.  Settlements are subject to permanent status negotiations:
By Agreement with the PLO, "the Settlements" means, 
In the West Bank - the settlements in Area C; 
and in the Gaza Strip - 
the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas


The Israelis never occupied Palestinian Territory; they did occupied Egyptian Governed Territory and Jordanian Sovereign Territory.  The Arab Palestinian rejected the opportunity to establish a State _(more than once)_ until 1988, when they finally declared Independence while the territory was already under military occupation; but four months after the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank.  During the tenure of the Mandate and the and the time since independence, the Jewish Immigrants never never represented a colonial power; no relationships between a colonial power and any Jewish Settlement was established while the territory was under under the Mandate.   In fact the Jewish Immigrants were not all from the same country, or even the same continent; and could not represent a single power.

The purpose of the occupation is to extend the protections to the sovereignty and integrity of Israel against an opponent that does not recognize the State of Israel; and holds the political position that the Arab Palestinian is the only legitimate sovereign to the territory that covers the land west of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.  This is the same opponent that has declared Jihad (Holy War), and considers any means necessary to take in the eviction of the State of Israel as legal and legitimate.  This threat was made in February 1948, and has appeared in the Islamic Resistance Movement Covenant, the Palestinian Nation Charter, and most recently, the the 2013 Official Position Paper published by the Khaled Mashaal, Political Leader, Islamic Resistance Movement and Unity Government Partner.  Given the previous history of past behaviors, and actual response to the 2005 Disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the Occupation of Palestinian territory there is no reason to believe that an agreement to suspend combat _(or any formal Peace Agreement)_ will be honored by the Palestinian Regime; and that the Palestinians have every intention of attacking by surprise the enemy relying on Peace Agreement they conclude.  Based on the current position of the Arab Palestinians there is essentially little prospect for a peace agreement that will have any success.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not exactly accurate and some what exaggerated.
> 
> ...


Not all Jewish Immigrants were Zionist.​
That is true. The Zionists imported Jews from anywhere to populate their settlements. Most were probably unaware of the colonial project.

The Arab Palestinian rejected the opportunity to establish a State _(more than once)_ until 1988,...​
Not true. Palestine was already a provisional state under mandate and they declared independence in 1948 after the Mandate left Palestine.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Of course it's not.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not exactly accurate and some what exaggerated.
> 
> ...



The "purpose of the occupation" has extended far beyond the "protections to the sovereignty and integrity of Israel" - it has extended to attempting to permanently keep the land it is occupying through "settlements" and through restricting Palestinian settlements.

Why do people keep pretending that it is ONLY about security when their very actions indicate it isn't?


----------



## fanger (Jun 28, 2015)

*Don’t be fooled: “media watchdogs” are Israeli propaganda tools*
*Don t be fooled media watchdogs are Israeli propaganda tools Redress Information Analysis*


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Setting aside the fact that these were Europeans with the intent to colonize Palestine, you are making things up as Zionists do. Nothing of sort happened.  The Europeans did buy some land but the non-Jews still owned at least 85% of the land at the time of partition.
> 
> "_164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "_
> 
> ...







 The operative word being possession, just as now Israel is in possession of 100% of the West Bank.     Want to build a case around that freeddy boy


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the fact that these were Europeans with the intent to colonize Palestine, you are making things up as Zionists do. Nothing of sort happened.  The Europeans did buy some land but the non-Jews still owned at least 85% of the land at the time of partition.
> ...







 Make your mind up when did it become Palestinian land if Israel is stopping them from becoming a state ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...








 WRONG as I have just shown the non Palestinian government from Cairo was not qualified to declare independence in 1948. The rest of Palestine was mot represented and opposed the move.  No state of Palestine existed until 1988


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

We are separate nations, with separate nationalities, separate cultures, separate languages, separate cuisines and separate borders. We are not pan European nationalists like the arab nationals, but we can be a cohesive force against islamonazi attacks and after the latest atrocities expect recriminations.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...







 Do you have a link stating this as a fact from an Israeli government source


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

fanger said:


> *Don’t be fooled: “media watchdogs” are Israeli propaganda tools*
> *Don t be fooled media watchdogs are Israeli propaganda tools Redress Information Analysis*







 MORE ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA.............I give you pallywood and gaza as examples of this being a fallacy


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...



No they didn't. Their declaration of independence was in 1988. Stop lying.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...






 Thats  right it was the "all Palestinian government" an Egyptian based arab group that only spoke for gaza and had no legal standing outside of their own fantasy world. In any event they have their state in gaza now as Israel gave it up in 2005


----------



## Humanity (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Phoney you have to be the dumbest person on this board!

Repeating the same BS over and over when it is clear to EVERYONE that a link HAS been provided and you simply do not want to accept that you are an idiot!

Go let your racing pigeons out and have a wonderful Yorkshire day!


----------



## Humanity (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> why did they withdraw their settlers and troops from Gaza?



Money!



toastman said:


> Israel did not annex the West Bank



And East Jerusalem



toastman said:


> settlements could potentially be dismantled in a future deal



Will NEVER happen!



toastman said:


> Israel could colonize all of Palestine if they wanted, but instead they have tried to make peace with the Palestinians



Best joke of the day so far!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Yes they did.

A C.1 330 of 14 October 1948


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


And Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

What is your point?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Setting aside the fact that these were Europeans with the intent to colonize Palestine, you are making things up as Zionists do. Nothing of sort happened.  The Europeans did buy some land but the non-Jews still owned at least 85% of the land at the time of partition.
> ...


Just because Israel has its fat ass parked on it does not make it theirs.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...









So in other words you don't have a link, figures. And you don't have the mental capacity to work that one out.

Nor work out that you are having a major hissy fit and meltdown


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...








 That was acceoted by the sovereign land owners to represent the wishes of the Jews.  The arabs refused point blank to take part in any way and so lost out


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 International law does, or are you one of these racist pigs that believes International law should never work in Israel's favour


 By the way read article 80


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Then it would be the easiest thing to post that link again (10 sec work duh)
and shut him up right?

Then why do You reserve to name calling and using crowd mentality
as an argument?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Who were those supposed land owners?

Link?


----------



## jillian (Jun 28, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> 
> I believe Israel don’t have any goal to conquer more territory or to eliminate all the arabs around Israel. I believe Mr.Prager. Don’t you think he’s right? If you don’t, show your vision of the problem.



that's pretty much correct. but the jew-haters on the board won't like it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


What part of article 80 says what you think it says?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

jillian said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > “If tomorrow, Israel laid down its arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen? And if the Arab countries around Israel laid down their arms and announced, ‘We will fight no more,’ what would happen?” Prager asks. “In the first case, there would be an immediate destruction of the state of Israel and mass murder of its Jewish population. In the second case, there would be peace the next day.”
> ...


Prager went to Columbia?

He should demand a refund.


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


 
Well excuse me for bringing this argument back,
I believe too much people here a allowed to ditch their statements just to steer the topic.

Originally I said that Ashkenazi jews were persecuted in europe for being jews, all of a sudden the come 
to Israel and they're europeans....

Then follows an argument on whether arabs in Africa and Asia who call themselves ARABS
have different cultures can be called arabs even if they consider themselves so, having the Arab league (including countries from different continents). There's no parallel between them and European Union.
Geography grade 1.

The issue still remains that those jebustian lovers like to close their eyes and choose to call jews those people that suit their views whenever convenient.

Sometimes a hew is a religious person, then it's race, then it's a nation or an ethos...Sometimes Israelis are merely Polish and nothing else, next time they're the leaders of the USSR.

Tell me if arabs can gather from different continents and be respectfully recognized as "The ARAB League"
pursuing different cultural aspirations why suddenly jews who were massacred for their Jewishness
in those arab lands as well as Europe are denied the same right to be recognized as simply JEWS?

when did they become ALL Polish before or after the pogroms?


----------



## Humanity (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Link HAS been posted...Why would I want to waste 10 sec of my life on a dumbass who can't be bothered to look for the original duh!


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman, Tinmore, et al,

Actually, P F Tinmore is (in part) correct here.



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The All Palestine Government (APG), established by the Arab League --- in anticipation of an complete Arab Victory in 1948, did announce the independence on 28 September 1948 in a cable (AC.1/330) from AHMED HILMI PASHA, Prime Minister _(pro tempore)_;  three months after the State of Israel was declared.  The APG made a declaration "DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE."  This is the traditional claim that Palestinians hold today as articulated by Khaled Meshaal, _(Islamic Resistance Movement Political Leader)_ in the official position paper:  "Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."  Of course the Jewish State and the Arab State cannot declare sovereignty over the same territory at the same time.  The dilemma was resolved when the four Armistice Agreements were agreed to by the engaged warring parties.  The APG was dissolved by the Egyptian Government in 1959.  The West Bank was in Jordanian hands while the Gaza Strip was in officially under APG sovereign hands.  The remainder was in Israeli hands.  Israel was admitted to the UN and recognized by the General Assembly in Resolution 273 [A/RES/273 (III)] on 11 May 1949.

The end of hostilities and the Armistice arrangements made deliberations on the APG Declaration unnecessary.  The forward edge of the battle area (FEBA) along which the Armistice Lines were drawn settled the Issue. 

"The Egyptian defeat deprived the All-Palestine Government of its last and exceedingly tenuous hold on Palestinian soil, forcing it to transfer its seat from Gaza to Cairo. Its weakness was exposed for all to see, its prestige slumped, and its authority was undermined. In Cairo, the Government of All-Palestine gradually fell apart because of its impotence, ending up four years later as a Department of the Arab League. Thereafter, it continued to exist in name only until Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser closed its offices in 1959.  _*SOURCE:*_ Encyclopedia and From Wikipedia ​ 
The APG was not survivable and did not meet Article 22 prerequisites to be able to stand alone.  It have been dissolved for more that half a century.  Some considered it defunct when it was absorbed into the Egyptian Government as the "Department of the Arab League."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Obviously it was not a valid declaration since the real one was done in 1988

Google

Nowhere does it show any declaration of independence in 1948. It's basically on existent. 

The *Palestinian Declaration of Independence* is a statement written by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish and proclaimed by Yasser Arafat on *15 November* *1988*
*
Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General AssemblyResolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947

*


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Actually, P F Tinmore is (in part) correct here.
> 
> ...



In other words, they tried to declare independence on land that Israel already declared independent. They were 3 months too late. Had this DOI been the official one, they would have no reason to do it again in 1988.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


 I guess the reason Tinmore objects to the 1988 declaration, is because it only encompasses the West Bank and Gaza.  That's not good enough for him.  He wants ALL of Israel.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes, but whether he objects it or not makes no difference. The state of Palestine is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. That's it, that's all.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Also, the 1948 declaration was made by Egypt


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Actually, P F Tinmore is (in part) correct here.
> 
> ...


Of course the Jewish State and the Arab State cannot declare sovereignty over the same territory at the same time.​
That is true. The Palestinians defined their territory inside their own international borders.

What territory did Israel define in its declaration? Where were its defined borders?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > why did they withdraw their settlers and troops from Gaza?
> ...



Why is it a joke? Look at the peace deals offered to the Palestinian for peace. More specifically the ones in 2000 and 2008. 

Had Arafart accepted it in 2000, the Palestinians would have an independent state in 97% of the West Bank and Gaza and there would be peace. But they want East Jerusalem (ya, right !) and right of return (hahahaha).


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



So You have those 10 to call names but not to show us again Your link??

So common


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


*From your link.*

*The partition plan was not implemented.[11]*

There was no resolution 181. It was a non binding *plan* that did not happen.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Palestine did not have any international borders. Just because they lived on the land, doesn't mean it was sovereign Palestinian territory.

Israel declared independence on land allotted to it by the partition plan and is now a sovereign state. Deal with it. No amount of lying is going to change it.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Where in my link does it say that??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


When did Israel declare the partition plan borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Palestine did not have any international borders.​
Who told you that?

Link?


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

While You guys are numbed by some legal fictions/terms a real religious war is taking place.

While some try to persecute "war criminals" in high-society manner  of international courts,
muslims use Your willingness to mess up in those legal terms in arguments that take years,
while they have no respect for any other law than sharia.

The conflict can't be explained in some western terms that are easy for You to grasp.
You're bound to argue on legal terms while it has no connection to the ME lexicon and moral.

While millions try fanatically to annihilate the Jews You try to put it in a box that fits You
conveniently.

*I wonder how many of You have any real-life connection to what's going on.
My opinion is You're driven by Your egos while the currency of the argument is foreign to most of You.*


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I've asked you 100 times to prove that they had international borders. You got nothing. Now you're asking me to prove a negative?


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Israel did not declare borders. What does that have to do with anything ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

That is confusing to a number of people, because they do not put the various reports and resolutions in the proper sequence.



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

FIRST:  Up front, the question is:  Was it implemented?  The SHORT ANSWER is:  YES!

The implementation was disclosed in a Public Announcement:  Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948  (The date is important!)  The announcement says in part:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented.*"​
The UN page that simulates Resolution 181 (II) make two incorrect statements in the header of the page:

The UN Palestine Commission reported 
	
  that it was unable to implement res.
181 due to the deteriorating security situation and was abolished on 14 May 1948: 
	

The UNPC did say, in A/532  10 April 1948, that in part was:

"Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab States have infiltrated into the territory of Palestine and together with local Arab forces are defeating the purposes of the resolution by acts of violence. The Jews, on the other hand, are determined to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State, as envisaged by the resolution. The resulting conditions of insecurity in Palestine have made it impossible for the Commission to implement the Assembly’s resolution without the assistance of adequate armed forces."​
The was complemented with the observation that:

"Arab opposition to the Plan of the Assembly has taken the form of organized efforts by strong Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, to prevent its implementation and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including repeated armed incursions into Palestinian territory.​
However, that was not the last UNPC Report.  The UNPC carried-on as best it could.  A month later, with the evolving condition for war, the PAL/169 Statement was released to the media on implementation.

The second erroneous annotation in the header, suggesting that Resolution 181(II) was "abolished" is totally wrong.  What A/RES/186 (S-2) 14 May 1948 says in part is:

"_Relieves_ the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947."​
That is the last sentence of the Resolution and the only sentence in which either the UNPC or Resolution 181(II) are mentioned.  The 186(S-2) Resolution does not abolish anything.  In fact that word is not even used in the resolution.

The errors in the header are probable do to misinterpretations and inexperience.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



What are you talking about exactly?  You've got an apples and oranges argument here that isn't making a lot of sense.

Are you saying all Arabs are the same?  All Arabs are not the same?

All Jews are the same?  All Jews are not the same?

All Europeans are the same?  All Europeans are not the same?

What exactly are you talking about because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've said.


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Did I ever say "all arabs are the same"? I see You tend to dodge the arguments
projecting Your way o viewing everything in stigmatic manner.Th apples 'n oranges here are arabs and europeans You've tried to draw parallel between.

Read again the argument is valid for it shows exactly how You anti-Israelis
tend to murder a character of a whole people a thus justify physical murder.

When arguing on 48 they're called Polish, when reminded of arab pogroms they're called Marxist leaders,
while at times when cnvenient jews are merely a religious sect, when dealing with religious text they're separated between ashkenazi jews and sefardi jews.

So while arabs WHO ARE DIFFERENT (from various continents) have the privilege to define themselves as 'arabs",
the jewish identiy is always under question, attacked from every angle.

So tell me how jews from israel who were persecuted for being jews in arab and european lands,
all of a sudden become a different people?
Why do You  define the Jews/Hebrews while undermining THEIR own definition while
staying out of the issues of other people identity?



*That's an identity murder to justify a physical one.*


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> While You guys are numbed by some legal fictions/terms a real religious war is taking place.
> 
> While some try to persecute "war criminals" in high-society manner  of international courts,
> muslims use Your willingness to mess up in those legal terms in arguments that take years,
> ...


Stop trying to hijack this thread into something about Jews.  You wanna talk about Jews, go start your own thread.  This thread is about Israeli's and Palestinian's.  It has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam.


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > While You guys are numbed by some legal fictions/terms a real religious war is taking place.
> ...




Hhhh and that's very logical. Talk about Israel and balestininans but don't touch Judaism or Islam.
Do You live on his planet??

The question remains the same and it's valid to both Israeli and baestinians (public opinion), while You live thousands of miles away but so eagerly push Your opinions and noses as some sort of experts we know You are:

*"I wonder how many of You have any real-life connection to what's going on.
My opinion is You're driven by Your egos while the currency of the argument is foreign to most of You.*"


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> Hhhh and that's very logical. Talk about Israel and balestininans but don't touch Judaism or Islam.
> Do You live on his planet??
> 
> The question remains the same and it's valid to both Israeli and baestinians (public opinion), while You live thousands of miles away but so eagerly push Your opinions and noses as some sort of experts we know You are:
> ...


You don't have to be a chicken, to know an egg.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 League of nations  and the Mandate of Palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






Read it, and the explanation given


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 Who declared palestines international borders and signed for the neighbouring nations. When did this happen and what treaty was it under.

 A clue the LoN defined the mandate of palestines borders and truncated mandate of Palestine to Palestine for ease of use


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 But the LoN mandate of Palestine did and that is the terms the Jews declared independence under. Because the UN had become the trustee of the LoN mandate they were forced by International law to accept the Jews declaration of independence.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Mandate of Palestine..............................


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Hhhh and that's very logical. Talk about Israel and balestininans but don't touch Judaism or Islam.
> ...







 Specially a bad egg like you


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Can you quote that?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Can you quote where it says that?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> While You guys are numbed by some legal fictions/terms a real religious war is taking place.
> 
> While some try to persecute "war criminals" in high-society manner  of international courts,
> muslims use Your willingness to mess up in those legal terms in arguments that take years,
> ...



Exactly.  Most of the people on this Board, especially on the Palestinian side, have never been to Israel or the Palestinian territories.  Youtubes cannot make up for real-life and on-the-ground experience.  And they also think of the conflict in Western terms.


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Hhhh and that's very logical. Talk about Israel and balestininans but don't touch Judaism or Islam.
> ...



I understand the saying, but it only establishes my point further.

So You compare eggs to Israel-balestin?? It's not  simple "consumer friendly' issue, and I can conclude 
that those arguing fiercely here have little education on cultures from both sides, any training in law
or comparative philosophy of religions.

The last do Yo have real-time intelligence gathered fr You and analyzed....

Well we're all eggs and chicken experts that's for sure, You don't even have to visit a farm to know what's going on in reality. Politics as usual and most of us are useful idiots, especially those experts from
some hole in other unrelated country.

But everyone jumps in...isn't that arrogant?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> That is confusing to a number of people, because they do not put the various reports and resolutions in the proper sequence.
> 
> ...



The UN Palestine Commission reported 
	
 that it was unable to implement res. 181 due to the deteriorating security situation and was abolished on 14 May 1948:​http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/f...a9a8da193bd46c54852560e50060c6fd?OpenDocument

Then why did that clown say that it was implemented? And why do you believe him when it is obviously not true?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


I have read it. You are lying.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Look at my response to Rocco.

You need to keep up.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I've seen your response. No proof there. Now you are just deflecting.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Quote what exactly


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Here you go again


*The Council of the League of Nations:*
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...









 Read the rest and don't just take the small part that supports your POV


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 HOW wjhen all I did was tell you to read article 80, how is that lying ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 You are the one that needs to keep up as 181 did not give any borders and stated that the arabs and Jews needed to agree them


----------



## Humanity (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



The link isn't Mine it's posted recently on this board....

Why SHOULD I post a link AGAIN that is available to EVERYONE on this board for those few LAZY assholes who simply choose to bleat on about NOTHING!?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


I know all that but you do not know what it means.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Where does it say that they *needed* to agree?


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Humanity said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...




Let's see...to be seen as an intellectual person....to be truthful...to make a good use of tie dealing with fact rather than opinions.

So let's sum it up again:
10 sec to show a fact vs numerous replies rejecting that opportunity in favor of name calling.

Kindergarten stuff.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> I understand the saying, but it only establishes my point further.
> 
> So You compare eggs to Israel-balestin?? It's not  simple "consumer friendly' issue, and I can conclude
> that those arguing fiercely here have little education on cultures from both sides, any training in law
> ...


I don't have to have been there or know anyone personally involved to know that you cannot move into a neighborhood and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

This issue has nothing to do with philosophy or religion.  This issue is about international law and Israel's grouse violations of it.


----------



## rylah (Jun 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the saying, but it only establishes my point further.
> ...



rights....as I showed earlier Arabs in Israel are a privileged community with more social and financial benefits
than the average jew.

But that still doesn't change the fact that You get in the middle of a centuries old war/argument
trying to measure it using Your native standards and telling what is "right' for them.

Imagine Syrians going to  Russia telling them what to do in Kazan  or how to relocate their capital
to S Petersburg...or even how to deal with Ukraine's nazis.

Your difficult to realize th importance of religion and culture in this region show how
disconnected You are from the realities there.
YOU ARE A MERELY PASSING BY PUSHING YOUR NOSE INTO MATTERS
THAT HAVE LITTLE CONNECTION TO YOU EXCEPT FOR OIL PRICES- AND YOU'RE
USED JUST FOR THAT. A DELUDED "WHITE MAN" WHO DWELLS IN SELF-IMPORTANCE


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Yes it gives the 22% of Palestine left after the LoN partitioned it into an arab and Jewish as the Jewish national home. It also spells out that the arab muslims are covered by the mandates and would be dealt with accordingly. No borders were mentioned other than those of the mandate and the proposed national home of the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





A RES 181 II of 29 November 1947

 d) The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;

_Calls upon_ the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

_Appeals_ to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations

3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below

3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the saying, but it only establishes my point further.
> ...







 No such international law in existence up to the declaration of independence of Israel. And what International laws has Israel been found guilty of by the ICC/ICJ as that is the only benchmark to go by


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2015)

Phoenall, toastman, Tinmore, et al,

We go through this periodically.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*

The boundaries are described as follows:-- *INTRODUCTORY  Position*

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows:

North.—From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East.—From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South.—From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West.—The Mediterranean Sea.​
*(COMMENT)*

The "administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, was based on the Sykes-Picot Treaty and the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of 1920 _(AKA: Paulet–Newcombe Agreement named after the two Military Officers that lead the Survey Team)_.  The boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia were authored by LTC Newcombe British Surveyor in agreement with the French.  The Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, were authored by LTC Paulet, French Surveyor in agreement with the British. These Survey results were finally established and agreed upon on 7 March 1923; shortly before the  British and French took-up Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.

There was no political subdivision called Palestine prior to the establishment of the territory under which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.  What "P F Tinmore" is using and referring to are the boundaries established in the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement of 1923 for the Mandate was  named after.  It is also why the All Palestine Government (as an example) used the phrase:  ""PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE.""    It is because the Arab Palestinian had no other means to identify the territory other than in relationship to --- and by the name the Allied Powers assigned the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> 
> We go through this periodically.
> 
> ...


There are some facts that we need to remember.

The Mandates never annexed or otherwise gained possession of the mandated territories. They had no land or borders of their own.

The Mandates were temporally assigned to hold defined territories in trust on behalf of the people.

"The people" were defined by international law and reiterated by the Treaty of Lausanne. In the defined territory of Palestine that would be the Palestinians. "The People" have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination, independence and sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

The mandates had procedures, goals, and end times specified in the LoN Covenant.


----------



## toastman (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> ...



The Treaty of Lausanne had NOTHING to do with 'Palestine' or the 'Palestinian' people. How many more times are you going to spew that lie ?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are confused.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandates never annexed or otherwise gained possession of the mandated territories. They had no land or borders of their own.


*(COMMENT)*

The territorial boundaries applicable to the four major Mandates in the region were documented by international agreements as stipulated in Post #436 supra.  The Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920 is still the pillar document that encompasses the boundaries as revisited in the Special Report of 1932.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandates were temporally assigned to hold defined territories in trust on behalf of the people.


*(COMMENT)*

The purpose, goals and limitation of each mandate is spelled-out in each of the respective mandates.

"The various Mandates or "charters" adopted by the Council comprise a collection of provisions defining the manner in which the principles laid down by the Covenant are to be applied. Under the terms of the latter, the degree of authority or control to be exercised by the Mandatory varies according to the character of the territory."
_*SOURCE:*_  PART II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME --- Section 2 Mandates and Charters --- Series of League of Nations Publications  VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1​
In addition to the regular boilerplate for Class "A" Mandates and Charters, the Mandate for Palestine was different in that:

"The _Palestine_ Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
_*SOURCE:*_  PART II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME --- Section 2 Mandates and Charters --- Series of League of Nations Publications  VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1​


P F Tinmore said:


> "The people" were defined by international law and reiterated by the Treaty of Lausanne. In the defined territory of Palestine that would be the Palestinians. "The People" have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination, independence and sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> The mandates had procedures, goals, and end times specified in the LoN Covenant.


*(COMMENT)*

Nowhere in the five Parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is the "Right of Self-Determination" mentioned.  Nowhere in the five Parts to the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine mentioned.  Nowhere in the five Parts to the Treaty of Lausanne are inherent or inalienable rights discussed at all.

Preamble
Part I: Articles 1 - 45
Part II: Articles 46 - 63
Part III: Articles 64 - 100
Part IV: Articles 101 - 118
Part V: Articles 119 - 143
The Orders in Council, the Citizenship Order, and the Mandate are the principle documenters that cover the administration of the Mandates; and in no way infringe on the Arab Palestinians civil or religious rights (which are the only two rights stipulated in these documents).  While the Arab Palestinian may have been subject to --- it should be noted that the Arab Palestinian was never a party (signatory) to any of the Treaties, Covenants, Mandates, or Council Orders.  And, the Arab Palestinian declined several times to become involved and have a voice in the administration of the territory to which the Mandate applied:

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
*SOURCE:* *Political History of Palestine under British Administration*​
It was very obvious that the Arab Palestinian did not want to participate in the governance process, or a deliberative dialog and decision making process which listens all voices and diverse perspectives (Arab and Jewish) to enact meaningful change.  Nor did they want to be involved with Article 22 administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

The 1945 UN Charter [Article I (2)] stipulates that a purpose of the UN Organization is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; but does not define self-determination as a inherent and unalienable right.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/3/217 A), 10 December 1948, adopted by the UN General Assembly, outlines the common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society.  The right to self determination, independence and sovereignty, and territorial integrity are part of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] of 1970.  These rights are enunciated well after the creation of Mandates and the era which ended the Mandates; in fact it comes after the 1967 War.

In terms of the duration of a mandate, Article 22 said:  "Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."  While the mandate has terminated (in a sense) the 1988 State of Palestine has yet to demonstrate that it can "stand alone."  Palestine is a parasitic country that survives on donor nation contributions.  It has yet to change governments in a peaceful manner in accordance with their basic law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> ...


It is generally accepted that all peoples have the same inherent, inalienable rights.

Where do you get the impression that the Palestinians are exempt?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Again - I fail to see your point nor do I see what it has to do with what I was talking about.
_
"Why do You  define the Jews/Hebrews while undermining THEIR own definition while
staying out of the issues of other people identity?"_

WTF are you talking about?  You're the one that seems to be defining Jews.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Ok...I think I sort of see what you are saying.  You saying that if folks don't live there they have no right to talk about it.

You have no real life connection to what's going on in the US.  What gives you the right to talk about our President or policies?  Or - is that different?


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 28, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



It is not hard to know what is happening in the US, every media carries stories on every aspect of life.  In the middle east, it is a bit different.  From England and US, far too many years ago, it was like starving to get any information.  Now we have the internet and get reports from people by the second.  Those we lived there understand what they are describing, the average american is reading greek.  It is a passing care and most of the detail are like smoke things they cannot grasp.  I've seen both side.  American might think they are well informed but most are not.  Half the high school student if they hear the names palestine will think if texas if they have any clue at all.

Most people don't understand or know about the different countries in Africa or Asia.  Start taking about the pacific island and most would have never even heard the names let alone anything about the islands or the people.

There are a lot of armchair critics about the news but there is far too much ignorance as well.  Sad but true.  People who have lived over seas understand this.  I laugh at the TV news analysts try and speak intelligently.  There are more americans that understand the area after being stationed there, but far too any are basically faking it.  Names, places, a few words but book education is not really understanding the people or actually see how politics works, or doesn't.

We like that more people want to know or care, but it is often superficial and short lived.

It is a bit like saying your understand the people and politics of California just because you went to Disney land or watched a movie.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I don't think this is either sound nor valid.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is generally accepted that all peoples have the same inherent, inalienable rights.


*(COMMENT)*

Is that so?

Inalienability does not mean that rights are absolute or can never be overridden by other considerations.
There is no right that can not, given the proper set of conditions, be temporarily or permanently retracted; not even the right to life.  And there is no right that cannot be waived by the holder.
It is doubtful that all human rights are inalienable in this sense; because these rights are generally, at the domestic national level, exist because they have through legislative enactment, judicial decision, or custom become part of domestic law.
There are different countries with different criteria for rights.  The right to free speech is different under Sharia Law than under most western laws.  Just ask the folks at the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Inherent Rights are even more questionable.
Are the Inherent Rights in Iran the same as in the US?
Rights that are endowed by the Creator is dependent on the belief structure.

I cannot think of any right that, giver the right set of condition, cannot be forfeited.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where do you get the impression that the Palestinians are exempt?


*(COMMENT)*

I did not mention Palestinian exemptions.  I argued the rights in 1920 (civil and religious) were different from the rights in 1948 (Universal Right), which are different from the rights of today (inherent and unalienable).  Rights vary from country to country, religion to religion, and legal system to legal system.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 28, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> It is not hard to know what is happening in the US, every media carries stories on every aspect of life.  In the middle east, it is a bit different.  From England and US, far too many years ago, it was like starving to get any information.  Now we have the internet and get reports from people by the second.  Those we lived there understand what they are describing, the average american is reading greek.  It is a passing care and most of the detail are like smoke things they cannot grasp.  I've seen both side.  American might think they are well informed but most are not.  Half the high school student if they hear the names palestine will think if texas if they have any clue at all.
> 
> Most people don't understand or know about the different countries in Africa or Asia.  Start taking about the pacific island and most would have never even heard the names let alone anything about the islands or the people.
> 
> ...


Does that mean you're not going to talk about how Israel became a nation, because you weren't there in 1948?


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 28, 2015)

rylah said:


> rights....as I showed earlier Arabs in Israel are a privileged community with more social and financial benefits
> than the average jew.
> 
> But that still doesn't change the fact that You get in the middle of a centuries old war/argument
> ...


You're right about one thing, this issue has nothing to do with me.  It doesn't affect my daily life in any way, shape or form.  And because I don't have a stake in this, I'm the most objective, non-partisan voice you'll have on this subject.  And what I see is this:

Israeli-Arabs are treated like 2nd class citizens
There are apartheid laws (Nakba Law) that discriminate against them.
Palestinian's in general, are treated like they're subhuman.
There are over 100 UN resolutions on Israeli human rights violations.
It is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.​
There is nothing delusional about that.  There's nothing religious about that.

That's reality!  Not some made up BS you're pushing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I don't think this is either sound nor valid.
> 
> ...


I cannot think of any right that, giver the right set of condition, cannot be forfeited.​
Forfeited is a government euphemism for stealing. They like to use a different word to distinguish themselves from the other crooks.

UN resolutions state that Palestinians have the inalienable right to:

Self determination without external interference.

Independence and sovereignty.

Territorial integrity.​
They say that these rights are pre existing.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain their rights?


----------



## Humanity (Jun 29, 2015)

rylah said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Simply making a point to someone who, historically, is incapable of posting links to support any of his BS posts!


----------



## rylah (Jun 29, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > rights....as I showed earlier Arabs in Israel are a privileged community with more social and financial benefits
> ...




Well let's get our facts straight- what You see is what You choose to look for.
And the info You get is from....wait for it....wait for it...THE INTERNET AND TV
How many Israeli-arabs do You know actually?

You see where I'm going?

In reality those Holocaust survivors and orthodox jews are 2nd class civilians who
have to be pushed and are used as pawns. While the arabs are well paid doctors, lawyers etc..
who pay no tax on the land, have tremendous discounts in water and electricity, get extra benefits from social-security and are allowed to build without any check-ups.
Arabic is the national language in Israel beside Hebrew. They have representatives in the parliament
who for years call for the destruction of Israel and cooperate with Hamas and Hizballa freely.
A regular jew has to struggle financially while young arabs get inheritance  and new houses for nothing.

balestianians get water,electricity and money from Israeli taxpayers even during those conflicts in spite of all.
They're treated for free in Israeli hospitals. Given lands with infrastructure and working-businesses...have a full freedom of religion...while the zionist push harder on the average jew to end the month...not to mention those poor orthodox with 4-7 kids who have to be excused for getting their rightfull benefits.
Arabs don't have to serve in the IDF if they choose.
THAT'S THE REALITY

Well You don't look for truth so why should I bother to continue.

**Show me the exact violations, the treaties and the place and time of the crime. Then as a decent human being You can place those accusations. Until then it's Your OPINION.*

And YES those balestinian terrorist who dance to the deaths of others,
send children with bomb-vests and hide behind civilians in guerrilla "wars" and break every ceasefire-
THEY"RE LOW LIVES and they use Your uninformed opinion in their justification to murder.
NOTHING OBJECTIVE ABOUT A HALF BAKED OPINION based on THEIR SAY-SO  YOU TRY TO ENDORSE.

*In Russia they'd be "Hunted down and if needed killed in restrooms they hid in" and You'd be silent as a mouse.

Nothing religious or ethnic about that, would say the same about any american who behaves in this manner


----------



## Linkiloo (Jun 29, 2015)

I'd like the pals to look forward and their supporters to stop going back to the colonialist/racist narrative that gets no one anywhere, fast. If they were clever they would accept current areas they have, lay down their weapons and get busy with building themselves up rather than fighting. That is where they fail and why they are the issue. No one can deal with persons who are bent on destroying them and who do not acknowledge their existence. They have never accepted living next to a peaceful Jewish state and have thereby entrered no man's land. Their supporters do not help them by encouraging this status.


----------



## rylah (Jun 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I'm a Hebrew living in Israel...and I see You clearly have a difficulty here.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, toastman, Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 Link from the LoN itself saying this

Try again using the correct terms as in the mandated powers and not the actual mandate

 No Palestine before the Mandate so the people where Jews, Christians and muslims. Each granted the same rights to declare independence on their own section of land. A pity the arab muslims chose the wrong route to self determination

 LINK from the LoN saying that the mandates had an end time, show the date of the end time ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 After which date was it "generally accepted" that all peoples have the same inherent inalienable rights.
 Provide a link to this becoming International law and not a recommendation ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 29, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > rights....as I showed earlier Arabs in Israel are a privileged community with more social and financial benefits
> ...








 LINK

 LINK

 LINK

 Means nothing when the judges are the worst offenders

 Tell that to the muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 And they have all these and no one is stopping them from exercising these rights. Apart from their own greed and unwillingness to work at being a viable nation.

 Are they recognised as a nation by the UN                                                  YES

 Are they showing self determination by attacking Israel                               YES

 Have they declared independence                                                                YES 

Have they declared their territory and negotiated mutual borders                  NO


 1988 when they declared independence, and then completely stopped the process when they realised they would lose all the aid and blood money they get. First to go would be UNWRA and that would result in gaza going bust


----------



## Coyote (Jun 29, 2015)

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



No, I am having no difficulty.  You don't seem to be able to express yourself and I am not alone in struggling to make sense of your attacks.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



rylah lives in Israel and English is not his first language, but I have been able to follow him.  What I think he is saying is this:  During the centuries that the Jews suffered persecution in Christian Europe, they were discriminated against because they were Jews.  In other words, they were considered Jews and not Europeans.  Then, when Jews create the State of Israel as a safe haven, people say that they have no right to be there since they are Europeans, first and foremost.  They are even called "fake Jews".  So Jews are condemned either for having a homeland, or for not having one.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 29, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



I've never said that and I still don't understand what that has to do with the conversation we were having


----------



## montelatici (Jun 29, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



It doesn't matter if the Christian Europeans considered the Jews of Europe Europeans or not.  It was the Middle Easter non-European Christian and Muslim people that considered people that came from Europe, dressed like Europeans, looked like Europeans and spoke European languages that naturally, considered the European Jews Europeans.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 Yet you have very clearly stated that the European Jews should be kicked out of Palestine . Not that longh ago your father and grandfather where telling the Jews of Europe to get back to Palestine where they belong


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2015)

(1)   Fact:  Israel exists
(2)   Muslim extremists hate (1)
_fini_


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 29, 2015)

rylah said:


> Well let's get our facts straight- what You see is what You choose to look for.


The same is true for you.



rylah said:


> And the info You get is from....wait for it....wait for it...THE INTERNET AND TV


That doesn't automatically make the claims false.



rylah said:


> How many Israeli-arabs do You know actually?


Zero.



rylah said:


> You see where I'm going?


Yeah, towards an invalid rebuttal.



rylah said:


> In reality those Holocaust survivors and orthodox jews are 2nd class civilians who
> have to be pushed and are used as pawns.


Where's your proof they've been "pushed" or used as "pawns"?



rylah said:


> While the arabs are well paid doctors, lawyers etc..
> who pay no tax on the land, have tremendous discounts in water and electricity, get extra benefits from social-security and are allowed to build without any check-ups.


Can they live in "Jew only" communities or drive down "Jew only" roads?



rylah said:


> Arabic is the national language in Israel beside Hebrew. They have representatives in the parliament


Can they be PM?



rylah said:


> who for years call for the destruction of Israel and cooperate with Hamas and Hizballa freely.


Where's your proof of this?



rylah said:


> A regular jew has to struggle financially while young arabs get inheritance  and new houses for nothing.


That's bullshit!  Where's your proof of that?



rylah said:


> balestianians get water,electricity and money from Israeli taxpayers even during those conflicts in spite of all.
> They're treated for free in Israeli hospitals. Given lands with infrastructure and working-businesses...have a full freedom of religion...while the zionist push harder on the average jew to end the month...not to mention those poor orthodox with 4-7 kids who have to be excused for getting their rightfull benefits.


More bullshit.  Where's your proof of those?



rylah said:


> Arabs don't have to serve in the IDF if they choose.
> THAT'S THE REALITY


Wrong.  The reality is, they're barred from serving.



rylah said:


> Well You don't look for truth so why should I bother to continue.


How convenient.



rylah said:


> **Show me the exact violations, the treaties and the place and time of the crime. Then as a decent human being You can place those accusations. Until then it's Your OPINION*.


I already have, you refused to comment on them.



rylah said:


> And YES those balestinian terrorist who dance to the deaths of others,
> send children with bomb-vests and hide behind civilians in guerrilla "wars" and break every ceasefire-


That's bullshit.  Israel has broken every cease-fire they've ever entered.  You show me one cease-fire they didn't break and I'll show you their actions that did.



rylah said:


> THEY"RE LOW LIVES and they use Your uninformed opinion in their justification to murder.


My opinion is not uninformed and you can take that condescending attitude and shove it up your ass.



rylah said:


> NOTHING OBJECTIVE ABOUT A HALF BAKED OPINION based on THEIR SAY-SO  YOU TRY TO ENDORSE.


Who is "they"?



rylah said:


> *In Russia they'd be "Hunted down and if needed killed in restrooms they hid in" and You'd be silent as a mouse.


Again, who is "they"?



rylah said:


> Nothing religious or ethnic about that, would say the same about any american who behaves in this manner


WTF are you talking about?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 29, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Well let's get our facts straight- what You see is what You choose to look for.
> ...



Some Jew-only roads were established on the West Bank because of snipers who were shooting at Jewish drivers.  Also, Billo, you don't differentiate between Israel proper and the West Bank.  You should really switch to a topic where you have more real-life experience.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 29, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The Mandates never annexed or otherwise gained possession of the mandated territories. They had no land or borders of their own.​
"The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls *they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory* outright. Mandates and preferential alliances were no more than provisional arrangements, and the presence of the Western Powers in various guises stimulated the growth of local nationalism dedicated to the early realization of full sovereignty." - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 29, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The Mandates were temporally assigned to hold defined territories in trust on behalf of the people.​
Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it.

To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978


----------



## Coyote (Jun 29, 2015)

rylah said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Arabs don't have to serve in the IDF - however service in the IDF is leads to greater promotions and career choices.  Not serving limits.

Your opinion sounds pretty half baked as well.

How many Jewish homes are bulldozed?
How many Arab homes?
How many permits are granted for Jewish projects?
How many permits are granted for Arab projects?
How many new Jewish settlements have been approved?  Can Arabs live in them?  How many new Arab settlements have been approved?
How does the amount of money given to Jewish schools compare with Arab schools?
Why do illegal Arab settlements get bull dozed while most illegal Jewish settlements get infrastructure?
Why are Arabs being pushed out of Jeruselum through a complicated system of denied "residency" permits and absentee confiscations?


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



half of those with infractions have charges filed against them and less than 10% are bulldozed.
 the number has raised gradually over the years.

Egypt has also bulldozed homes in the sinai.

more than 14,000 settler homes in the WB have been bulldozed


----------



## montelatici (Jun 29, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



You are the king/queen of apologists for Israel.  If penguins in Antarctica bulldozed homes you would bring it up.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 29, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Egypt is bulldozing homes for to create a buffer - not part of an ongoing thing.

Do you have sources to support your claim of less than 10% and more than 14,000?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 29, 2015)

UN Israel demolished homes of 1 177 Palestinians in Jerusalem and West Bank in 2014 - Diplomacy and Defense - Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

_Israel’s planning policies very much limit the ability of Palestinians to build in East Jerusalem, discriminating against them compared to Jews. In Area C — the majority of the West Bank — except in certain exceptional cases, Israel does not allow Palestinians additional construction relative to the natural population growth, and does not allow connecting hundreds of communities with some 300,000 Palestinian residents to infrastructure (according to OCHA figures). Therefore, the three options facing people are living in crowded housing and difficult conditions, moving to the Palestinian enclaves in Areas A and B or building without permits, and out of a lack of choice repeated building with no permits._​


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, must of us in my era, were familiar with Professor Jacob Hurewitz's (Columbia University) work on a number of different issues; unaffiliated with either the UN or USG.  He wrote the passage you cite below.

Yet --- there is another passage that is just as important.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandates never annexed or otherwise gained possession of the mandated territories. They had no land or borders of their own.​
> "The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls *they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory* outright. Mandates and preferential alliances were no more than provisional arrangements, and the presence of the Western Powers in various guises stimulated the growth of local nationalism dedicated to the early realization of full sovereignty." - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978


*(ADDITIONAL PASSAGE)  All from your same source:*

First:

The allocation of Arab territories

Article 22 laid down no rules for the selection of the Mandatory Powers or for the distribution of mandates between them. Turkey and Germany were simply made to renounce their claims to sovereignty over the territories whose distribution was to be decided by the Allied Powers. Germany's divestiture of titles was codified in the Treaty of Versailles (article 119). In the case of Turkey, such renunciation was provided for in the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 (article 132) but, since that treaty never came into force, the renunciation of Turkish claims over non-Turkish territories was formalized in the Treaty of Lausanne. *The treaties of Versailles and of Lausanne contained explicit provisions empowering the Allied Powers to apportion the "freed" territories as their mandates. *

The former German territories were allotted by a decision of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers on 7 May 1919, shortly after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The former Turkish territories, however, were divided at the Conference of San Remo on 25 April 1920, while a legal state of war with Turkey still existed, three years before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. The administration of Syria and Lebanon was awarded to France, and that of Palestine and Transjordan and of Mesopotamia (Iraq) to Great Britain. ​
Second:

The Covenant of the League of Nations

The League of Nations was a body _sui generis__,_ established by an unprecedented agreement by the victorious States of the post-war world to establish their concept of order in international relations. The place of the colonies ruled by the victorious States and the territories detached from the defeated States was a special problem in this order. 

*Colonialism then was still part of the international system,* although President Wilson's programme, a liberal landmark in the development of anti-colonialism, acknowledged that the concept of the right of self-determination applied equally to the non-Western part of humanity:


"A free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the Government whose title is to be determined."
The League of Nations, designed to respond to the prevailing order, adopted the mandates concept, an innovation in the international system, as a way to accommodate the demands of the colonial age with the moral and political need to acknowledge the rights of the colonized. 

Article 22 (full text at annex IV) of the Covenant established the Mandates System, founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the "tutelage ... of advanced nations" formed "a sacred trust of civilization". The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political maturity of the territory concerned. The most developed would be classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'. 

The character of the Arab peoples, themselves inheritors of an ancient and advanced civilization, could not but be recognized, and the clauses directly applied to Arab lands as class 'A' Mandates read:


"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
Palestine was in no manner excluded from these provisions. 

*(COMMENT)*

In the first and second decades of the 20th Century, when many of the critical decisions were made, the League of Nations did not have the advantage of the resolutions on self-determination, rights of the indigenous population and the relationship between states on the issue of sovereign integrity.  The Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination did not actually become a non-binding resolution until 1994 (A/RES/49/148).  While it is true that the non-binding Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, in which the self-determination is addressed, it comes a half century after the adoption of the mandates, the Balfour Declaration, and the consensus of the Allied Powers at San Remo.

The Arab Palestinian reject the Article 22 "tutelage."

The treaty gave the freedom to the Allied Powers the right to apportion as they determined was necessary.  

The idea of self-determination was still in the concept form with President Wilson's work-in-progress.  
Whether or not you are sympathetic to the outcomes relative to the establishment of Israel (the Jewish National Home), the fact of the matter is, Israel is a reality.  

Israel has become a hi-tech economy in the past 60 years.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
Israel vary tolerant in terms of Religion and is multi-cultural:  Israel proper is approximately 76.4 percent Jewish, 16 percent Muslim (mostly Sunni), 1.6 percent Druze, 2 percent mostly-Arab Christian and 4 percent unspecified.
In terms of its Arab neighbors, Israel is the most stable country of all the adjacent Arab countries.  It is an example of a developing nation that we need more of in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## aris2chat (Jun 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



apologies

1,700 palestinian homes demolished and 1,400 settlement homes

Most the settlements demolished contained about 250 families in a  dozen to fifty buildings.  Some were mobile homes, tin building to almost finished cinder block apartment buildings.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, must of us in my era, were familiar with Professor Jacob Hurewitz's (Columbia University) work on a number of different issues; unaffiliated with either the UN or USG.  He wrote the passage you cite below.
> 
> ...



In terms of its African neighbors, Apartheid South Africa was the most stable country of all the adjacent African countries. It was an example of a developing nation that we needed more of.  

The non-white citizens of the occupied territories, the Bantustans, were not treated so well.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Well let's get our facts straight- what You see is what You choose to look for.
> ...








 Not quite as you go looking on anti Jew sites for your information.

 It does if they come from anti Jew sources.

 So you cant comment then can you

 Why not a valid one ?

 The Internet and TV

 Yes as there are none of those in Israel

 YES if they can get enough votes, just as the KKK could put forward a Grand Wizard to be President.

 Internet and TV

 Living in Israel and seeing what happens. Just as you are now seeing gangs getting treatment for injuries before those who pay for the treatment.

 First hand experience, you don't live there to see it

  No they are not and they beg to join in some cases

 Its true you don't unless it meets with your NAZI POV

 No you copied a list from an anti Jew site

 Of course you can when you alter the timeline and remove the hamas violations

 But it is as you only see one side, and that is the NAZI JEW HATRED side


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 They did not need to as the LoN had done that through treaty in 1917. Again you try and use 2014 legalities retrospectively to alter 1923 treaties, it wont work as the laws were not in existence.  By the way Britain and France did not have the power to annexe the land they where just mandated powers and nor sovereign land owners.

 Your link is just islamonazi propaganda and as such invalid as evidenced


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 So where is the date of the end of the mandatory power, seeing as the mandate for Palestine is still in existence until Palestine becomes a full nation


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...







 How many Jews can live safely in arab areas ?

 How many Jews are terrorists ?

 The children get the same amount spent on schooling, it is the arabs that split the amount allocated and try to claim they are given less.

 Prove they are illegal Jewish settlements

 Because they are living in property stolen from the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 WRONG ....................Egypt is bulldozing homes under the same clause of the Geneva conventions that Israel is. That of Military necessity and it is an ongoing thing. Remember Rachel Corrie who was protesting against Egypt bulldzoing tunnels in gaza and committed suicide, still bulldozing the same areas today.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Rachel Corrie wasn't protesting against the Egyptians.  The best way to do public relations for Israel is to get all of our facts straight.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 She was protesting in Rafah which is the Egyptian side of gaza. The Egyptian army are bulldozing homes and collapsing tunnels the same as Israel . My point is that none of the islamonazi's are making any noises about what Egypt are doing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


It is confusing because the Egypt/Palestine border goes *through* Rafah.

Israel wanted a buffer zone so it bulldozed whole neighborhoods on the Palestinian side. Egypt is bulldozing on the Egyptian side.

It is an asshole thing to do either way.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...



It wasn't very smart of her to play "Chicken" with a bulldozer.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 30, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



That's the Israel firster coming out.  Had it been an American protesting in Egypt during the Arab Spring that was killed by the Egyptian security forces in the same way, no American would side with the Egyptians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


That is true. Britain was to assist the Palestinians until they could stand alone. They didn't do that. They fucked thing up so bad that they just threw up their hands and left.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2015)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Particularly when there is a single digit IQ asshole driving it.


----------



## quorthon (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 What are your views on the American beaten by Palestinians in Jerusalem and then used as a poster child for Palestinian propaganda. Should Americans not be demanding reparations from fatah who are in charge of Jerusalem


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Then why didn't they declare independence under 181 in 1948 instead of wasting 40 years


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It didn't mean shit.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 Not even today when the Palestinians are using it.
 remember that the LoN mandate was used by Israel to declare independence in 1948, and that the Palestinians tried to trump that by using 181 and failing because they did not read the terms through. The Palestinians after 67 years still cant show they can stand on their own feet. Guess you support the losers


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Indeed, both of those losers are using it to pretend to have legitimacy.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 No pretence in the case of Israel as they have International law supporting their right to exist and have legitimacy.  Unless you can find another international law that trumps the one enacted in 1923.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Do you have a 1923 international law that mentions Israel?


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Yes under the term Jewish National Home, just as the same 1923 international law mentions Jordan as trans Jordan.

 You can obfuscate all you want it wont make any difference to the facts that the Jews where granted the land for their national home. The name Israel was a later construct coined in 1948, just as Jordan was a later construct so does this make it an illegal state as you claim for Israel ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are confused by the meaning of Jewish National Home.


----------



## toastman (Jul 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Post a link that explains the definition of 'Jewish National Home'


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 1, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate​
The Jewish immigrants were to become Palestinians. As Palestinians they could live anywhere in Palestine and enjoy the other fruits of citizenship.


----------



## toastman (Jul 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Where does it say anything there about a Jewish National Home?

The problem is that there was no definition for the term. Look at ther term again. Jewish NATIONal Home. See the word nation? How is living as Palestinians in 'Palestine' a Jewish national home ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 1, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Don't ask me. I didn't write the Mandate.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 No but you are, as it means just that the NATIONal home of the Jews. It was destined to be the Jewish nation from the word go, and that is what you Jew haters don't like. The LoN passed into international law the creation of the Jewish National Home in 1923, at the same time giving the arab muslims trans Jordan as their national home


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Wrong article as that does not mention the Jewish National home,  but these do


*The Council of the League of Nations:*
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

*ART. 6.*
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes

You seem to be confused with the nationality law that was never intended to bestow statehood on any part of Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 But you are trying to re-write it in favour of your islamonazi POV


----------



## Billo_Really (Jul 2, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Wrong article as that does not mention the Jewish National home,  but these do
> 
> 
> *The Council of the League of Nations:*
> ...



And in your data dump is this little diddy...

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

...but you fuckers didn't honor that part, did ya?


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 2, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong article as that does not mention the Jewish National home,  but these do
> ...






And once again an islamomoron tries to retrospectively use 2014 laws back in 1923. The existing non-Jewish communities where treated exactly as the International laws of 1923 guaranteed, no more or no less.



 So honoured in full, while you lot disobeyed  the Mandate and the UN charter when you forcibly evicted and/or mass murdered the Jews when they gave the combined arab league forces a sound thrashing in 1948 - 1949.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jul 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> And once again an islamomoron tries to retrospectively use 2014 laws back in 1923. The existing non-Jewish communities where treated exactly as the International laws of 1923 guaranteed, no more or no less.


What international law allowed you to treat them like this...

*"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ..."* 



Phoenall said:


> So honoured in full, while you lot disobeyed  the Mandate and the UN charter when you forcibly evicted and/or mass murdered the Jews when they gave the combined arab league forces a sound thrashing in 1948 - 1949.


Honored in full?

Tell that to the over 700,000 residents you drove out with Jewish terrorism.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 3, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > And once again an islamomoron tries to retrospectively use 2014 laws back in 1923. The existing non-Jewish communities where treated exactly as the International laws of 1923 guaranteed, no more or no less.
> ...







 Where do you get the "YOU" from, as I can point at you and your driving out of millions of Jews in the name of Nazism and islamofascism.
 You should really get your facts right before posting your Jew Hatred for all to see, and do some research into what was allowed in 1923, 1948 and 1967 compared to today.  And as the reports show the "Palestinians" left of their own accord with less than 12000 being forcibly evicted, and they where all terrorists that should have been shot.
 And you cut and paste comes from an ISLAMONAZI source so treat it with disdain and disbelief


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Jul 16, 2015)

Watch ISIS threatens to apos uproot the Jewish state apos - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post


----------

