# A few questions so I will know who I'm dealing with...



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 11, 2013)

This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...

1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?

2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?

3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?

4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.

5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)

Nice quiz


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67,  _et al,_

Interesting!



HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...


*(PRSNL ANSWERS)*

Q1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?


A1:  Yes _(A 2013 Answer given what we have today.  I might have thought differently in 1948.  Once freedom and independence is given, it cannot be so easily or lightly taken back.)_

Q2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?


A2:  "D" International Control  _(It should not be the province of one people, but of all people.)_

Q3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?


A3:  No _(Probably not.  But some reparation or compensation can be considered.)_

Q4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.


A4:  "A"  Terrorist Activity  _[A clear violation of GA Res 2625 (XXV) and A/RES/60/288]_

Q5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?[/QUOTE]


A5:  No  _(I believe less than 1 in 3 want a peaceful solution with a 2-State outcome.  I believe that 70%-80% of the Palestinians support the Hamas Charter concept to totally defeat the Jewish State.  I do not believe that the Palestinians are supporting peaceful solutions.)_

I hoped this helped.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)

I have an annoying thing to ask you, Roccor.

If you can while typing the Italics make the font a bit bigger? Its just two small, my eyeballs cant handle it! lol


----------



## Coyote (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?



I believe there should be a State of Israel.  It should be what it's people want it to be.  If they want a Jewish State, so be it.  I question though, whether any religious state can also be a democracy and would like to know what is meant by a "Jewish State".



> 2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?



That is a really difficult question with no clear answers. No to b and c.  Maybe to d.  Option "a" depends on whether Israel will protect the cities diversity or continue on with it's program of removing Jeruselem's Arab citizens through a process of approving and denying building permits.  



> 3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?



No.  But compensation can be made.



> 4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.



Another tough call.  The winners get called "resistence" and the losers "terrorists" in the end.  



> 5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?



Yes, at least according to polls I've seen.

Your questions don't allow for crisp black and white answers, much like the situation they address.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?



Israel's existence is not to put under question to begin with.



HistoryBefore67 said:


> 2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?



Mhmm
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






HistoryBefore67 said:


> 3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?



No



HistoryBefore67 said:


> 4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.



Big (A)



HistoryBefore67 said:


> 5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?



No.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> _This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters_...


Well, that leaves me out... I guess I can't answer...


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 11, 2013)

i dont get a flying fuck about any of those questions...i am sick of the us paying a lot of money to both israel and the arabs and not getting a damn thing in return.  there is no money it seems in the middle east having peace


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)

BTW, I believe you can cross out the option of "Jordanian control" in the Jerusalem question.

The Jordanians need the Jerusalem mess like a bloody thorn in their bloody side.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 11, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > _This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters_...
> ...



Sure you can... you'll just probably find that I agree with you.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 11, 2013)

I think these are good questions for all to answer


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 11, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> i dont get a flying fuck about any of those questions...i am sick of the us paying a lot of money to both israel and the arabs and not getting a damn thing in return.  there is no money it seems in the middle east having peace



I suppose I could point out to you that many technological and medical advancements that we benefit from in this country originated in Israel, but I doubt it will do any good.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)

Details, details.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 11, 2013)

For the record, my personal answers are:

1.  Yes
2.  (a)
3.  No
4.  (a)
5.  No


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> _Sure you can... you'll just probably find that I agree with you._





HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...



1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?

*Yes*

2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?

*(a) Israeli control*

3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?

*No*

4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.

*(a) terrorist activity*

5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?

*No*


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 11, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > _Sure you can... you'll just probably find that I agree with you._
> ...



My answers are the same as yours.  Great minds think alike!


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)




----------



## Hossfly (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > i dont get a flying fuck about any of those questions...i am sick of the us paying a lot of money to both israel and the arabs and not getting a damn thing in return.  there is no money it seems in the middle east having peace
> ...


MJB preaches that all the time.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 11, 2013)

Jeremiah said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


All who answered with Yes,A,No,A,No win a fifty cent seegar. Everyone else will stay after class for a refresher course.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 11, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?
> 
> ...



1)  Yes.  My mom's family landed in the Russian half of Poland, when Poland was divided between Russia and Germany.  They were deported to Siberia, which was pretty bad, but not as bad as a concentration camp in Germany.  But when they returned to Poland after the war, they were not welcome there.  They applied for visas to America, which were denied.  They had no place to go to, except Israel.  The Jews need one country of their own, and that country is Israel. 

2)  Israeli control.  Despite Kondor's map which shows Palestinians all but gone, the truth is that Palestinians control every major Biblical city on the West Bank.  Hebron, where Abraham lived, is all Palestinan today.  So is Bethlehem, where David was born, Jericho which Joshua captured and Shechem (Nablus) where Joseph is buried.  I prefer history to the beaches of Haifa and Tel-Aviv.  In the Old City of Jerusalem you can feel G-d and history.  Selfish as it may be, Jerusalem is the only Biblical city we have left, and it is ours.

3)  Financial compensation for both Jewish and Arab refugees.  I have a friend whose parents were driven out of Egypt.  His father started a clothing store here in Brooklyn.  It's ridiculous that the Palestinians are still in refugee camps all these years later.

4)  Well, I think it was the rocket fire that brought on the blockade.  What are they "resisting" when Israel left Gaza in 2005?

5)  It's really hard to say because I have met really friendly Palestinians, but I'd have to say the answer is still no.  The Palestinian leadership is corrupt, and educate their children in hatred.  But I still always hope for a peaceful resolution one day.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 11, 2013)

_et al,_

Thanks a lot for ruining the curve.



Hossfly said:


> All who answered with Yes,A,No,A,No win a fifty cent seegar. Everyone else will stay after class for a refresher course.


*(COMMENT)*

Now I have to take the refresher course.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Lipush (Jun 11, 2013)

Lmao


----------



## hortysir (Jun 11, 2013)

pencils





yes


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 11, 2013)

reabhloideach,  _et al,_

Oh, come now.



reabhloideach said:


> look on the bright side. at least your "irrelevance" can be remedied.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I've always had a certain amount of "irrelevance."  I buy it in bulk at the warehouse store.



reabhloideach said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think these are good questions for all to answer
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

A "zionist ambush"????

As is "irrelevant" as I am, the questions are straight forward.  What is the harm?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

Zionist ambush, lol.


----------



## patrickcaturday (Jun 12, 2013)

> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> ...




*1 ) No !!!  My problem here is the word Jewish, my problem here is with the designation Jewish in that I think that it is impossible to have a democracy in a religious state.  This word automatically creates an underclass of all non-Jewish people in the state.
2 ) D if you look at the UN resolutions that first of all established the partition and the second one that admitted Israel as a member state in the UN, Israel agreed to the fact that Jerusalem would be an international city.
3 ) The same reason as in # 2 above Israel agreed to the right of return in the above two UN resolutions.
4 ) If you choose A, that answer would also apply to the Israelis in operation Cast Lead.
5 ) I really don't have enough information to answer this question. 

I would be remiss if I did not include the following comments on your questions, I also think they are relevant to the conversation.  I find the attitude expressed by your questions and your comments following to be dismissive arrogant and biased to say the least.You have set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner.   What or who gives you the right to be so caviler about other peoples answers and further who set you up as the arbiter of who is right and who is wrong on what amounts to a group of subjective questions.  I find your questions and comments to be more indicative with who we are dealing with rather than who we are.

By the way I find no compelling reason to attend your class and will not be doing so !!!*


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 12, 2013)

patrickcaturday said:


> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> >
> >
> > > This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> ...



Having taken tests and quizzes for the first half of my life, I found that most of them were subjective to some degree.  He merely set up this quiz to see who was pro-Israeli, and from your answers, it seems that you aren't.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

The idea that you can't have a Jewish democracy is simply wrong.  All democracies have core values and principles that are not subject to being overridden by simple majority vote.  Israel was established to provide the Jewish people with a safe haven.  That can't be altered by vote, but all Israeli citizens can elect representatives to advocate their views and further their interests.

I also find it amusing that anti-Israel folks are so appalled by the notion of a Jewish State, but are fine with the many Islamic Republics.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> The idea that you can't have a Jewish democracy is simply wrong.  All democracies have core values and principles that are not subject to being overridden by simple majority vote.  Israel was established to provide the Jewish people with a safe haven.  That can't be altered by vote, but all Israeli citizens can elect representatives to advocate their views and further their interests.
> 
> I also find it amusing that anti-Israel folks are so appalled by the notion of a Jewish State, but are fine with the many Islamic Republics.



How many proposed laws by Israeli Arabs actually became law?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> The idea that you can't have a Jewish democracy is simply wrong.  All democracies have core values and principles that are not subject to being overridden by simple majority vote.  Israel was established to provide the Jewish people with a safe haven.  That can't be altered by vote, but all Israeli citizens can elect representatives to advocate their views and further their interests.
> 
> I also find it amusing that anti-Israel folks are so appalled by the notion of a Jewish State, but are fine with the many Islamic Republics.



I'm appalled by your simplistic lumping of people into "anti-Israel folks" and your presumption that they are "appalled" by the notion of a Jewish state and "are fine" with many Islamic Republics.

You provide great questions for discussion and then apply stereotypes that presume to know what people are thinking and shut off real discussion.  It's almost a "baiting" post - as if you aren't truly interested in what people think. * So lets make this a real discussion.
*


Your first question:  
1. Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?

Leads to two more questions:

What do you mean by a "Jewish State" - what does that mean on the ground?

Second - can any religious state be compatible with a democratic society?

The second question can't be answered until the first is defined


----------



## patrickcaturday (Jun 12, 2013)

> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that you can't have a Jewish democracy is simply wrong.  All democracies have core values and principles that are not subject to being overridden by simple majority vote.  Israel was established to provide the Jewish people with a safe haven.  That can't be altered by vote, but all Israeli citizens can elect representatives to advocate their views and further their interests.
> ...




*I find that if the core values of a state codify a second class then it really is not a democracy, and proving your assumption wrong I find the same thing about the notion of an Islamic Republic as I do about a Jewish State. 
Also refering back to an earlier post of yours if the monitor of the questions is biased, as you are, then that bias will be reflected in his judgement, and not to be trusted.*.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush said:


> Zionist ambush, lol.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > Zionist ambush, lol.



that's what i call it when someone asks questions for the purpose of attacking someone who responds in an honest fashion but not to the liking of the person asking the question.

she said she wanted to know who she was dealing with? she shoulfd have said "i just have a few questions so i can attempt to rip you to shreds.

hey, i'm gullible and naive. i keep trusting people at their word and expressed intent, even pro-israelis  initially....but if she wants to go all aggro, i can certainly accomodate her.

fuck you.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

*Back to the questions: * What is meant by a "Jewish State"?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> *Back to the questions: * What is meant by a "Jewish State"?



It means a state that has as its core principle the mission of providing the Jewish people with a safe haven.

Are you so unaware of history that you fail to comprehend why such a haven is necessary?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > *Back to the questions: * What is meant by a "Jewish State"?
> ...




But what does that mean in terms of the actual application of a state?  What does it means in terms of laws and rights?  What you are stating is little more than a bumper sticker slogan.



> Are you so unaware of history that you fail to comprehend why such a haven is necessary?



Are you really going to insist on acting like a troll?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

By the way, if you don't like my questions, don't answer them.  Nobody is forcing you to respond.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> By the way, if you don't like my questions, don't answer them.  Nobody is forcing you to respond.



I actually like your questions - I think they are interesting.  It would be nice to discuss them - if that is your intent.

I'm well aware of history but the question isn't why a homeland for Jews was needed - the question is what is meant by a Jewish State and whether it can work with a democratic society and government.  It's not rocket science


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

patrickcaturday said:


> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> >
> >
> > > The idea that you can't have a Jewish democracy is simply wrong.  All democracies have core values and principles that are not subject to being overridden by simple majority vote.  Israel was established to provide the Jewish people with a safe haven.  That can't be altered by vote, but all Israeli citizens can elect representatives to advocate their views and further their interests.
> ...


*

You've proven nothing.*


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you don't like my questions, don't answer them.  Nobody is forcing you to respond.
> ...



I've already answered that question.  If you don't like the answer, fine.  But it does not change the fact that democracy is never an absolute.  In the U.S., elected officials cannot enact a statute that violates the Constitution (our core principles).  In Israel, elected officials cannot remove the core principles that make Israel the Jewish homeland.

This is why my question about the "Palestinian right of return" is key.  If Israel were to allow Arabs to move to Israel by the thousands (or millions) and establish a majority, Israel would cease to exist.   Those who purport to believe that democracy is the only valid value on the planet might say "so what?"  

We all know what happened the last time people said "so what" about the fate of the Jewish people.


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

The answer for me is no , and I suspect everyone will answer that too, I hope


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

Seal, I have a really stupid question I've always wanted to ask you.

Why is it that even though you're online, there is no Green Light next to your username ?????


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

why should the palestinian people be made to pay the price for events that occurred in europe.

i think also you need to get your "so what"s straight. on the one hand, jews claim they didn't resist the nazis because they didn't have any idea of the severity of the holocaust, or that there even was one...that there was something going on. on the other hand, you have people saying "so what" about jews being exterminated as though they knew.

"a "so what" is a bit simplistic, don't you think.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



I agree - a democracy is never an absolute.  What are the core principlees that make Israel the Jewish homeland?



> This is why my question about the "Palestinian right of return" is key. * If Israel were to allow Arabs to move to Israel by the thousands (or millions) and establish a majority, Israel would cease to exist.*   Those who purport to believe that democracy is the only valid value on the planet might say "so what?"



I agree - agreeing to a "right of return" would be demographic suicide for Israel.  There are those that say Israel's constitution and society are strong enough to withstand that but I am not so sure.

I don't think that democracy in and of itself is the only valid value.  What I consider important is a system where all citizens have equal rights and protections.



> We all know what happened the last time people said "so what" about the fate of the Jewish people.



I don't disagree with that but at the same time - that can't be used to perpetrate further injustices.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

But when you call me "arrogant" that's fine, right?



> do you think all people should be able to form a state based upon shared religious belief and at the expense of people who had lived there for centuries?



Jews have lived there for centuries, so your question is a mere strawman.


----------



## José (Jun 12, 2013)

> Originally posted by *reabhloideach*
> why should the palestinian people be made to pay the price for events that occurred in europe.



Now you hit the nail in the head.

For the last 60 years, *the palestinian people have been paying the price of german racism*.

It takes a heartless monster to support the state of Israel.

The world needs to find an alternative where the security of the jewish people and the rights of the palestinian people are not mutually excludents.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> I agree - a democracy is never an absolute.  What are the core principlees that make Israel the Jewish homeland?



It is encompassed in the Law of Return, which was enacted to ensure that Jews throughout the world have the right to safe haven in the State of Israel.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

José;7368182
For the last 60 years said:
			
		

> the palestinian people have been paying the price of german racism[/B].



No, the "Palestinians" have been paying the price of their own racism.  When Jews lawfully began moving to the British Mandate of Palestine, buying land, and establishing residence, the Arabs reacted with violence.  This created a circumstance that prompted Great Britain, through the UN, to divide the land.

None of that changes the fact that the Arabs were there AFTER the Jews, and the Jews never abandoned Israel - THEY WERE EXPELLED.  

So why should the Jews pay the price of Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Muslim or Ottoman racism? (and yes, I've left off a few)


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 12, 2013)

It's more than just once a year at Passover.  Jews who pray 3 times a day, say it 3x a day in their prayers.  It's said in every Grace-after-Meals.  Jews pray towards Jerusalem, not Mecca.  
Also, Jews have always maintained a presence in the Land, even when they weren't the majority or the rulers.  For instance, the Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) was started in Sefad, a city in then-called Palestine, during the time when Jews weren't the majority or in control.  
Furthermore, there are 4 fast-days that correlate to the destruction of Jerusalem.  I can't keep 4 fasts, so I just fast on one of these days, Tisha B'Av, the most important of these.  On that day, we sit on the floor all day long.  You have no idea what Israel and Jerusalem mean to the Jewish people.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 12, 2013)

José;7368182 said:
			
		

> "..._The world needs to find an alternative where the security of the jewish people and the rights of the palestinian people are not mutually excludents._"


Not really; compared to the problems of the world, Palestine is a flea, and relatively unimportant in the broader scheme of things, other than it containing a variety of holy places which the Arab-Muslims stole at the point of a sword, centuries ago.

As Palestinian-controlled lands continue to shrink towards the size of a postage stamp, and as they continue to lob rockets at innocent Israeli civilians (_and thus losing whatever small shreds of sympathy that they had in the minds of many throughout the world_), they will eventually be obliged to pack up and leave and scatter to Jordan and Lebanon and Syria and Eqypt and Iraq and the like, and twenty years beyond that, they will have been happily forgotten by the rest of the world.

Any group of people who are willing to sit and rot in refugee camps and towns for 65 years without taking the hint and moving their families to someplace sane - any people who are willing to delude themselves for 65 years with sugar-plum visions of a Return that is never going to happen - just aren't playing with a full deck.

The world has grown bone-weary of these Losers taking center-stage when there are far more important things to deal with.

Accelerate the inevitable, scatter these Losers to the four winds, and be done with it.


----------



## patrickcaturday (Jun 12, 2013)

> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > José;7368182 said:
> ...




*Every single one of the words that you have said could be said about the Jews except that it was 2000 years instead of 65 years.  So who has a better claim to the land !!!*


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

patrickcaturday said:


> > Kondor3 said:
> >
> >
> > > Not really; compared to the problems of the world, Palestine is a flea, and relatively unimportant in the broader scheme of things, other than it containing a variety of holy places which the Arab-Muslims stole at the point of a sword, centuries ago.
> ...



Patrick,claim of the land is an over-discussed irrelevant topic if you ask me.
The land belongs to whoever is ruling it at any point in time


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

and those jews who did maintain a small presence in jerusalem were by and large opposed to the mass in flux of european immigrants.

i do have an idea of what jerusalem and israel mean to some of the the jewish people, but the jewish people are a religion. furthermore, the prophets of judaism are the same prophets of catholicism and islam. i imagine there are places holy to them as well, and that is not the point.

but, speaking of what is important to people, you do not know how important the opposition to colonial enterprise is to the irish people, particularly british colonial enterprise. we fight it whenever and wherever it occurs, from kenya to las islas malvinas to india and the troops led by the executed hero james daly or south africa and executed hero major john macbride...and we made a small deviation from that from 1914 to 1967 about when we did support a jewish homeland...until we realised it was contrary to some of our core beliefs. the irish are the palestinians and the palestinians are the irish.

the british had no right in the world to give any part of the mideast to anyone. it wasn't theirs and if you want to talk about anti-semitism, the creation of israel fits that bill to a t. "those jews are a nuisance. let's shuffle them off somewhere and get them out of our hair...after they lend us bookoo bucks to fight the huns."

it is a religious state also, which is against my core belief in the principles of constitution of the united states of america...seperation of church and state. the thing is, my beliefs do not allow for much exception...what is good for white is good for black...or any kind of diety. you yourself in this post as much say that it is because of religious reasons that you believe in the state of israel...pray, pray, pray.

you know what too. i think the concept behind the creation of the state of israel runs contrary to most jews core beliefs as well, if expressed in general terms.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> *Back to the questions: * What is meant by a "Jewish State"?



Depends who you ask


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

toastman said:


> Seal, I have a really stupid question I've always wanted to ask you.
> 
> Why is it that even though you're online, there is no Green Light next to your username ?????



You can change the profile definition so it will be "invisible".

Just like I'm doing now.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

José;7368182 said:
			
		

> > Originally posted by *reabhloideach*
> > why should the palestinian people be made to pay the price for events that occurred in europe.
> 
> 
> ...



"the palestinian people have been paying the price of german racism"

*In that case, they should have done more to bring down their main Mufti, who admired Hitler and wanted to adopt the Nazi ideology himself*

They supported the Nazis, so it's kind of "fates laughter" of some sort.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> José;7368182
> For the last 60 years said:
> 
> 
> ...



lots of people get expelled. the celts were driven out of western france, england. do they have a claim.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > José;7368182
> ...



You tell me.  You seem to be awfully concerned about the "Palestinians" who were supposedly expelled, so where's your line?


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush said:


> José;7368182 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



get real. they supported the nazis? (actually, they didn't) al-husseini was largely unsuccessful in his endeavours...i think he had a small smattering of bosnian muslims he enlisted) not because of racism but because they were against british colonialism and the transfer of that colonialism to european jews.

my god, if there was all that much arab/islamic racism, how hard do you think it would have been to wipe out that very small but flourishing community of jews in jerusalem. most jewish people lived comfortably in the mideast, in fact, as a protected minority...until the advent of zionism.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 12, 2013)

José, Kondor3,  _et al,_

It sounds so right, how could it be wrong?



			
				José;7368182 said:
			
		

> "..._The world needs to find an alternative where the security of the jewish people and the rights of the palestinian people are not mutually excludents._"


*(COMMENT)*

This was the original intent.  It was the meaning behind some of the controversial phrases in the Treaty, and in the Mandate.  



			
				Mandate for Palestine said:
			
		

> "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)



The problem is that the execution and coordination was not successful.

Even though the Allied Powers saw a need to find the Jewish Population a safe and security homeland; especially after the most embarrassing purge by the Germans in WWII _(and the fact that very few non-Jewish citizens in Europe actually tried to save the Jews - although there were some heroic effects)_, the Arab had no affinity whatsoever concerning the Jews and their plight. 

The assumptions that there would be a natural assimilation of the cultures, was incorrect; although the tone of the Jewish-Arab agreement of January 1919 would have suggested otherwise.



			
				Article IV - FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT said:
			
		

> All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development. - See more at: Faisal-Weizmann agreement/Non-UN document (3 January 1919)





Kondor3 said:


> Not really; compared to the problems of the world, Palestine is a flea, and relatively unimportant in the broader scheme of things, other than it containing a variety of holy places which the Arab-Muslims stole at the point of a sword, centuries ago.


*(COMMENT)*

It may be the case that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually have some benefit, in that it artificially focuses radicals into one small area; thereby, not endangering the security of the surrounding kingdoms.



Kondor3 said:


> As Palestinian-controlled lands continue to shrink towards the size of a postage stamp, and as they continue to lob rockets at innocent Israeli civilians (_and thus losing whatever small shreds of sympathy that they had in the minds of many throughout the world_), they will eventually be obliged to pack up and leave and scatter to Jordan and Lebanon and Syria and Eqypt and Iraq and the like, and twenty years beyond that, they will have been happily forgotten by the rest of the world.


*(COMMENT)*

This is possible if the Israelis adjust the appearance they project.



Kondor3 said:


> Any group of people who are willing to sit and rot in refugee camps and towns for 65 years without taking the hint and moving their families to someplace sane - any people who are willing to delude themselves for 65 years with sugar-plum visions of a Return that is never going to happen - just aren't playing with a full deck.
> 
> The world has grown bone-weary of these Losers taking center-stage when there are far more important things to deal with.


*(COMMENT)*

I was having tea last week with an old Egyptian friend of mine.  He made a very similar observation.  It is not without merit.  It is the primary reason that the US has to go around and seek financial aid and support (from Arab countries) for the Palestinians; and why the Arab countries just don't have an organized aid effort for the Palestinians.



Kondor3 said:


> Accelerate the inevitable, scatter these Losers to the four winds, and be done with it.


*(COMMENT)*

There are very few nations that want the Palestinian.  It is an unnecessary headache for them that they are (unofficially) glad to see Israel contain for them.  Certainly all the surrounding regional nations have had an opportunity to establish industrial, and economic programs for Gaza and the West Bank.  All of them have the capability to negotiate lines of commerce in and out of the Occupied Territories, unhampered by Israeli restrictions to support economic, agricultural, and industrial programs to boast the Palestinian economy.  But they don't want bitten either.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Jun 12, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > José;7368182 said:
> ...


Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

I rest my case, Roudy.

Truth can be avoided up to a certain point.

One cannot make the blind see.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

toastman said:


> patrickcaturday said:
> 
> 
> > *Every single one of the words that you have said could be said about the Jews except that it was 2000 years instead of 65 years.  So who has a better claim to the land !!!*
> ...



i can live with that and agree with it, certainly. i do think it important to note that as countries have become more global we are moving away from such tribal concepts, albeit very slowly.

lol...actually, i thrive on chaos and nature being red in tooth and claw, but then again, i lack certain social encumbrances. the future is not mine.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush said:


> I rest my case, Roudy.
> 
> Truth can be avoided up to a certain point.
> 
> One cannot make the blind see.




if you want to rest your case based upon the truth as presented by a hate site, that is your prerogative and, in light of that, i certainly will agree with your comment that "one cannot make the blind see."


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I agree - a democracy is never an absolute.  _What are the core principlees that make Israel the Jewish homeland?
_

Wow, that's actually an awesome question, and there are SOOOO many possible ways of answering it!

It can become a looong discussion.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



Jerusalem is our right hand, and how can you function normally once your right hand is cut off?


----------



## Roudy (Jun 12, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > I rest my case, Roudy.
> ...


[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=k6twkhM6h7k]Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi Connection - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...




the palestinians were not technically expelled but they were not allowed their right to return to their home after fleeing a war zone not of their making.

so, you are of the opinion that other countries should be forced to accept refugees regardless of who cuses them to have refugee status.

that's OK. while i don't believe in religious states i will smile silently when the united states in the future  insists upon having their existence recognised as a catholic state as it absorbs and grants citisenship to the many latinos flooding our borders.

that's fair.israel is a small sliver of the mideast but there are only 15 million jews. the united states is pretty small for over 1 billion catholics.

"shoot low sheriff, i think she's ridin' a shetland"  leon rausch


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?
> 
> ...



Yes, a, no, a and no are the right answers, IMHO, but only Professor HistoryBefore67 is authorized to give out passing grades.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 12, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Lipush said:
> ...


Well, I don't understand what the issue is here. There were 4 simple questions and everyone has different opinions so what makes your opinions the only correct answers?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 12, 2013)

We seem to be pretty much on the same page with much of this, Rocco.

So... is Israel being used by The West as a Tripwire and Buffer-State, much as Poland was used by the Soviet Union to drive a wedge between itself and NATO during the Cold War?

In this case, providing an early-warning tripwire system or proxy preemptive strike mechanism against the Arab-Muslims of the region?






"_Oh, yeah... buffers. Yeah, Senator, The West had a lot of buffers!_"


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 12, 2013)

patrickcaturday said:


> "..._Every single one of the words that you have said could be said about the Jews except that it was 2000 years instead of 65 years.  So who has a better claim to the land !!!_


Ummmmm... the ones with the prior claim, who managed to hold themselves together as a People and as a Religion for 2,000 years, and then found and exercised the Balls to take back their old Homeland and to hold onto it by force-of-arms?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 12, 2013)

patrickcaturday said:


> > Kondor3 said:
> >
> >
> > > Not really; compared to the problems of the world, Palestine is a flea, and relatively unimportant in the broader scheme of things, other than it containing a variety of holy places which the Arab-Muslims stole at the point of a sword, centuries ago.
> ...


If you think about it, ol' Joshua staked a claim and that is just as good as a deed. I can't see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?
> 
> ...



There is one now.

israel or jordan, pals are jordinians, so....

Israel gave land for peace and got more war, so fuckem

terrorism

pals don't want peace with israel, unless all the jews are dead and they are in control


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> ...



There are no "right" answers.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

Exactly.

There are no "correct" answers.  If there were, we'd be having a kumbaya moment.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

I think there are correct answers.

But they're not correct because I say they are correct.

They're just correct.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

Well that's one way of putting it...


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Exactly.
> 
> There are no "correct" answers.  If there were, we'd be having a kumbaya moment.



When you say there are no answers, what exactly are u referring to ?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 12, 2013)

toastman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...


I think she was referring to my response in post #70


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



ah, you're correct


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

nonetheless interesting poll yet it doesn't even summon the conflict. its just too complicated.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67,  Coyote,  _et al,_

Not that I know anything!  But...



HistoryBefore67 said:


> I think there are correct answers.
> 
> But they're not correct because I say they are correct.
> 
> They're just correct.


*(COMMENT)*

In philosophy there is this concept called:  The "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR).  In the simplest terms, it says that there is always a rational explanation for every event, or that explains why some things happen, can happen, or cannot happen.  You (or us) may not "know" what the answer is _(the true explanation)_, but that there is always an explanation.  It is very _Sherlock Holmes-ish_.

Most people will disagree with this, basically because it is the opposite of what you are taught in school, but when it comes to human dilemma, the theory of "what is right" and "what is wrong" does not exist.  In cases of human dilemma _(politics, the economy, the jury system, etc)_ the evaluation or judgment of what is "right or wrong" is determined by the outcome of the applied evaluation.  And the idea of a mistake in the evaluation of a human dilemma is only as critical or serious as the effect it has on the outcome.  If a mistake of judgment is made but results in no adverse impact of any consequence, then the evaluation was not "entirely" wrong.  Thus, "right and wrong" comes in degrees _(there are some answers that are more correct than others)_. 

This is an off-shoot of the Bertrand Russell's (1872-1970) concept which essentially states that the evaluation is made, not for the sake of a definite answer to the question at hand, since no definite answer can be known to be "true," but rather for the study of the question itself. 

The original survey, just as our friend "Coyote" says, has no "right or wrong" answers, unless it is evaluated in comparison to an outcome.  It is a hypothetical.  And the accuracy to an answer in a hypothetical is yet to be realized _(somewhere still in the future)_.  All we can describe today is its probability of occurrence.

Now I know I've bored you all to death, so I'll stop here.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

One more question that some of us may see it in a different way then others (especially concerning Jewish posters).

What is Israel? A democratic Jewish state or a Jewish democratic state.

What is to be the main Character, the Pluralism and democracy or the Jewish values?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush;  _et al,_

It is not a democracy.



Lipush said:


> One more question that some of us may see it in a different way then others (especially concerning Jewish posters).
> 
> What is Israel? A democratic Jewish state or a Jewish democratic state.
> 
> What is to be the main Character, the Pluralism and democracy or the Jewish values?


*(COMMENT)*

Israel is a "republic;" via the  Knesset.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush said:


> One more question that some of us may see it in a different way then others (especially concerning Jewish posters).
> 
> What is Israel? A democratic Jewish state or a Jewish democratic state.
> 
> What is to be the main Character, the Pluralism and democracy or the Jewish values?



It is a Jewish state, first, meaning that the Jewish people will always have the right to come to Israel and reside there.  It is not a country founded upon religious law, however, as there are many forms of Judaism.  So, in that respect, its certainly not a theocracy.  Rather, subject to the defining principle (the Law of Return), Israel is a democratic nation.  As such, its citizens (including, of course, Arabs) have the right to vote and elect representatives.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > One more question that some of us may see it in a different way then others (especially concerning Jewish posters).
> ...


That is the best description of the state of Israel that I have heard yet.  Congratulations.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



i never once said they were, nor have i dismissed anyone else's opinion/answer as "irrelevant". she could have just stated in the beginning that any answer contrary to her opinion was irrelevant.

personally, i like people like her. her arguments won't win any over to her side but her manner will win people to mine. i don't think jews, as a cultural group, have come to understand such things, at least if this board is any indication.


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > One more question that some of us may see it in a different way then others (especially concerning Jewish posters).
> ...



Well said !!


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> HistoryBefore67,  Coyote,  _et al,_
> 
> Not that I know anything!  But...
> 
> ...



i dunno...probability always interests me, not only as a math discipline but also as a an intuition applied to human behaviour. to many people forsake causality for a strict adherence to a belief in free wiill.

lol...i almost always get lucky in bars, but other than that, it's a curse.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Lipush said:
> ...



that democracy is betrayed by israel's necessity to maintain their jewish religious  and cultural hegemony. 

not all people are fooled by what is going on with the settlements in the west bank. some of us see the underlying reasons for israel's actions there.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 12, 2013)

Yes, this is part of the same "self definition" you want us to give the Palestinians, that you're in a hurry to deny of us.

We may want to maintain our Jewish cultural religious hegemony, and you know what? we have the full justified right to.

in a world where there are Dozens of Muslim and Christian countries, 1 country for the Jews, to be DEFINED as a JEWISH country, is completely fair game.

I don't get why the raised eyebrows!


----------



## MikeK (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?
> 
> ...


I am not concerned with the Israel/Palestine conflict.  I feel it is none of my business and none of my Country's (U.S.) business.  I am convinced that U.S. support of Israel has become an extremely costly and menacing burden to the U.S. and I'm aware of no reason to continue the so-called alliance.  Israel is not an _ally_ in the accepted sense of the word.  It is a costly and troublesome protectorate which the U.S. has absolutely no need for.   

I do sympathize with those good and decent Israelis whose hearts and minds are in the right places.  If they wish to remain there under the constant threat of the entire Arab world but without U.S. support, I would wish them luck.  But if I were among them I would get the hell out of there.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush said:


> "..._I don't get why the raised eyebrows!_"



Because it is a Jewish region...

That used to be a Muslim region...

That used to be a Christian region...

That used to be an Imperial Roman region...

That used to be a Jewish region...

That used to be a pagan region...

It's like having your living room set-down in the middle of an eight-lane superhighway...

The pink-slip (deed or title) to the land has changed hands many, many times over the millennia...

Everybody thinks they own a slice of it...

But possession and control and power have the final say in the end...

And, from where much of the rest of the world is looking, The Holy Land is in good hands now.

More honest and sane and trustworthy hands than it has been in for several centuries...


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 12, 2013)

Lipush said:


> Yes, this is part of the same "self definition" you want us to give the Palestinians, that you're in a hurry to deny of us.
> 
> We may want to maintain our Jewish cultural religious hegemony, and you know what? we have the full justified right to.
> 
> ...



you are not fully justified in doing it if it infringes upon or otherwise deprives others of their human rights.

i believe in seperation of church and state as my country was founded, in part, on those principles. some religious states, such as the vatican, are regarded as heads of a religion and are small and titular. there is also a difference between founding a state based upon a religion and recognising one that is alteady there. the other religious states that exist were formed by the indigenous people. israel was ormed by a migration of religious people.

what exactly is the "self definition" i want to give to the palestinians.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

Its time for my self-evaluation.

As a new member of this forum, I started this thread to determine the general range of mindsets among the various posters here.  I hoped that my questions would reveal these mindsets, not only by virtue of the specific responses, but also in terms of who would get their feathers ruffled by my questions and subsequent comments.  My hope was to gain an understanding of which posters are pro-Israel, which are anti-Israel, and which are somewhere in the middle.

Based on the results, I give myself and A+ for this thread.

Thanks for the responses!


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 12, 2013)

We never left of our own will.


----------



## toastman (Jun 12, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lipush said:
> ...



You are forgetting the fact that during the Zionist immigration, the territory was BRITISH controlled and they invited and encourages Jewish European immigration. 
If the Palestinians have a problem with that, then their beef is with the British


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Its time for my self-evaluation.
> 
> As a new member of this forum, I started this thread to determine the general range of mindsets among the various posters here.  I hoped that my questions would reveal these mindsets, not only by virtue of the specific responses, but also in terms of who would get their feathers ruffled by my questions and subsequent comments.  My hope was to gain an understanding of which posters are pro-Israel, which are anti-Israel, and which are somewhere in the middle.
> 
> ...



I was actually hoping for a good discussion...


----------



## Roudy (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Its time for my self-evaluation.
> 
> As a new member of this forum, I started this thread to determine the general range of mindsets among the various posters here.  I hoped that my questions would reveal these mindsets, not only by virtue of the specific responses, but also in terms of who would get their feathers ruffled by my questions and subsequent comments.  My hope was to gain an understanding of which posters are pro-Israel, which are anti-Israel, and which are somewhere in the middle.
> 
> ...


You can take that a step further and also conclude that the anti Israel posters are usually the worst Jew haters. Therefore proving that anti Zionism is the new anti semitism.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> I think there are correct answers.
> 
> But they're not correct because I say they are correct.
> 
> They're just correct.



I would disagree, and going back to your original questions, I'll explain why...

1. Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?

The answer depends on what is defined by a "Jewish state" - does that mean a theocracy?  Does that mean a state where all inhabitants have equal rights of citizenship, land ownership, representation in government and freedom from persecution?  Does it mean a state where religious law is intertwined with secular law?

In the end - I would agree that the only correct answer is yes, but that is because people of any state have the right to determine for themselves what that state shall be and if the people of Israel want their state to be defined as a Jewish state is their right.


2. The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?

For this one there truly is no "correct" answer - three major world religions claim Jeruselem and require access.  It was once divided.  What right does one group have over another?  It's inhabitants are diverse - or at least were - some of that diversity is being removed.  Perhaps the closest correct answer is international control because it truly is an international city.  But I would not call it "the correct answer".

3. Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?

While I personally say no, for pragmatic and demographic reasons - there are many who passionately feel that the right of return is every bit as critical as the Jewish right of return to Israel.  How can anyone accept that sentiment for one but not the other?  Again, no "correct answer".

4. Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.

This one has no answer because legitimate resistence involves terrorist activity in almost every instance.  I can not think of any cases where it did not and that includes the actions of Irgun, the Stern Gang and other groups in the founding of Israel.  What makes it "legitimate" is how closely we identify with one side or the other, how convincing the propaganda is and ultimately - whomever wins the conflict gets to write history.

There is no "correct" answer.


5. Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?

You are asking what people believe - how can there be a "correct" answer to belief?


----------



## Intense (Jun 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Its time for my self-evaluation.
> ...



There are Jews that are Anti-Zionist Roudy. 
It's not that simple. 

Does Israel have a Right to exist? 
If it puts God first, establishes and serves Justice, by all means.

Does Palestine have a Right to Exist? If it puts God first, establishes and serves Justice. Yes. Can it do that while denying Israel's right to exist and live in peace? Not at all.

What is the foundation community is built on? What is your reaction to being treated fairly and honestly, as opposed to being cheated or scammed, or exploited? Value for value. What kind of seeds you plant, they are going to mature. 

As Believers, is the foundation, God first in all things, regardless of the brand? What does that promote? It is not about getting the World to choose sides. It is about atonement across the board. Just a thought.


----------



## Intense (Jun 12, 2013)

Separation of Church and State is a Christian Concept. Locke coined it. We made it part of our foundation here in the USA. Can you compile a list of all Countries that subscribe to that philosophy?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 12, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> "..._formed by the indigenous people_..."


In the case of so-called 'Palestine', we're looking at Arabs who are the descendants of the last wave of immigrants (_carrying swords_) who steamrollered over the previous population... what goes around comes around... and now it's the Arabs' turn in the barrel...


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > "..._formed by the indigenous people_..."
> ...



Not really.  The Palestinians are descendents of the people preceding the Arabs as well as Arabs, as are the Jews who remained in that area.  They're all the same.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 12, 2013)

_et al,_

I was as well.



Coyote said:


> I was actually hoping for a good discussion...


*(COMMENT)*

There were a number of key issues made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jun 12, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> I was as well.
> 
> ...



Actually - I shouldn't whine...there is some good discussion....this is a good thread


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 12, 2013)

Roudy said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Its time for my self-evaluation.
> ...


So true, Roudy, so true.  Let's listen to what an Egyptian Christian and a Pakistani Muslim have to say............

Pakistani Muslim, Egyptian Christian say anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism - Israel Today | Israel News


----------



## Roudy (Jun 13, 2013)

Intense said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


You are confusing anti Zionism with being critical of Israel.  Do you understand what is the definition of anti Zionism?  Zionism is simply the right for the Jewish people to exist in the land that is central to their faith and which their ancestors lived in.  So one cannot be an "anti Zionist" and then say I believe that Israel has the right to exist.  There are many Americans that are critical of the USA and its policies, including myself, does that make me anti American?  However, not surprisingly you will find that most anti zionists happen to also be anti American.

Israel is a democracy by all standards, and has proven that it is for justice and peace and willing to make sacrifices to establish peace, as it has done in the past with Jordan and Egypt. Unfortunately the Palestinians as they say "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" and have shown many times that all they are interested in is the total destruction of the Israeli state to be replaced by an Islamic Palestinian Kalifate. That of course will never happen.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 13, 2013)

> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?
> 
> ...



I'll answer 5 outside the quote box so the software will accept the post.

I have too little information to make anything than a 'best guess' on this question but I'll have a stab at it.
I firmly believe, most people want to live a life in peace so, that in mind, I'd guess the majority would accept it based on the '67 borders.
However, I don't believe Israel will willingly give up that land but will try to play for as much time as possible to avoid giving an inch back.
If they truly intended to aim for peace, they wouldn't build illegal settlements on occupied land.

The problems Israel creates are of its government's making. The whole country was founded on bigoted ideals and started by terrorists.
The '67 war was started by Israel and they continue to build illegally on stolen land whist blaming everyone else for their self made problems.
The Zionist extremists have caused countless deaths along with misery and suffering as extremism always does.

Frankly, if we could get rid of the extremist idiots on both sides of the fence - the killing could stop tomorrow.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 13, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, this is part of the same "self definition" you want us to give the Palestinians, that you're in a hurry to deny of us.
> ...



But Judaism is NATIONALITY. the religious aspect is only 1% of it. that's why the comparison of it to Christianity is highly inaccurate.

I am all for human rights, but once they call to destroy Israel, that is the not so high standards of human rights, either.


----------



## editec (Jun 13, 2013)

These two  Abrahamic religions cannot live peacefully in the same state.

Extremist Islam V extremist Judaism.

I have no doubt that there are rational members of both religions living in that region but they have no power to stop the radicals.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

Indofred said:


> > This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> >
> > 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?
> >
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

Lipush said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Lipush said:
> ...



How can Judaism be a nationality?  As a group - Jews are hugely diverse in culture, appearance, language - the only common thread is religion.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 13, 2013)

No its not. Judaism's source is from the tribe of Judea. Judea was not a religion, but a surviving ethnic group after the kingdom of Israel was separated

We have diverse like many other nations on earth. Some of the differences are for the simple fact that this nation was parted into different locations in the world, but many of the differences are also part of the common culture of Jews.

This is soooo much more than about religion


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

editec said:


> These two  Abrahamic religions cannot live peacefully in the same state.
> 
> Extremist Islam V extremist Judaism.
> 
> I have no doubt that there are rational members of both religions living in that region but they have no power to stop the radicals.



They used to....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > > This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> ...


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 13, 2013)

Lipush said:


> No its not. Judaism's source is from the tribe of Judea. Judea was not a religion, but a surviving ethnic group after the kingdom of Israel was separated
> 
> We have diverse like many other nations on earth. Some of the differences are for the simple fact that this nation was parted into different locations in the world, but many of the differences are also part of the common culture of Jews.
> 
> This is soooo much more than about religion



study genetics and evolution and tell me you are going to get a black ethiopian PEOPLE and a blonde haired, blue eyed russian PEOPLE in what, 2000 years, 5000, not even a million.

judaism is a relgion and they use people to maintain a religious hegemony.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



I agree - that's why I think international control is best.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 13, 2013)

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. *It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews*.
> ...


_No group has the right to 'pig' the place for themselves?_

Why not?

The *Muslims* did it for *centuries*.

Now it's their turn in the barrel, and they're screaming bloody murder about it.

Suck it up and get used to it, the way the Christians and Jews had to do for so long.

International Control over the Holy City will not work over the long haul.

International Control is a fragile and ethereal thing and one cannot long govern a region or a city without a single firm hand at the wheel.

One controlling-faction at a time, is the only way to play this game, in the long run.

It's the Jews turn to control Jerusalem again... they went to the back of the line in 70 A.D. and have had to wait 1900+ years for another turn... they want full-value for their ride-ticket, and they seem intent on getting it, and we seem intent on backing them in that quest.

All religions will continue to be welcome to visit Jerusalem once things settle down again... all that will have changed will be who serves as Guardian or Trustee of the Holy City... and both Christians and Muslims have held that role in times past.

Let the Jews have their turn again... they paid full-price for their ticket and they've waited long enough... you (Islam) or we (Christianity) will probably get another turn in a few centuries... c'mon... be a sport... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Nothing lasts forever, and things change... welcome to the next centuries-long chapter in the history of Jerusalem...


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 13, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



there is a vast difference between the way zionism is practiced and the way it is preached.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

Coyote said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Jerusalem belongs to the people who lived there before all these wars removed a lot of people from their hometown. *It belongs to the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews*.
> ...



Would international control put all the rightful people back into their homes?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


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



It's a different world now.



> Now it's their turn in the barrel, and they're screaming bloody murder about it.
> 
> Suck it up and get used to it, the way the Christians and Jews had to do for so long.
> 
> It's the Jews turn to control Jerusalem again... they went to the back of the line in 70 A.D. and have had to wait 1900+ years for another turn... they want full-value for their ride-ticket, and they seem intent on getting it, and we seem intent on backing them in that quest.



Why does it have to be someone's turn.  Historically - they've ALL had a turn.  Time to end the silliness.



> All religions will continue to be welcome to visit Jerusalem once things settle down again... all that will have changed will be who serves as Guardian or Trustee of the Holy City... and both Christians and Muslims have held that role in times past... it's the Jews turn again... surprise!



While that is nice in theory it seldom works in practice.  International control seems to sanest because religions that are so antagonistic as they are now - can seldom be trusted to act sanely.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Not likely but it might prevent more people from being evicted.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


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


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

Coyote said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



The Old City also contains the Old Arab Quarter.  What's happening to it?

It's not flippant.  There are Israeli historians who have used that term.  Being flippant would be throwing around accusations of genocide.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 13, 2013)

"While that is nice in theory it seldom works in practice. International control seems to sanest because religions that are so antagonistic as they are now - can seldom be trusted to act sanely. "

Coyote, the same can be said for 'international control'.   The Arab League nations started their boycott against 'Zionism' over 75 years ago.  They also beggared and ejected some 950,000 of their citizenry for being Jewish.  They have refused to allow Magen Dovid Adom to be part of the 'International Red Cross/ Crescent' Society.   And when one of them - Jordan - had control over part of Jerusalem, the Jews of East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed out of their homes.  And somewhere around 28,000 graves of Jews  in the Mt of Olives cemetery were desecrated.  Headstones of Jewish graves were used as paving stones - with the inscriptions UP - and to line sewer channels.

Do you truly imagine that such 'governments' as continue to keep 'Mein Kampf' in print from government-owned presses would have any consideration for Jewish people's sacred sites?

Oh, and as has been discussed previously, a very prominent archaeologist has sold out the profession to politics by adding his voice to the lying noise by the current Waqf that 'The Jewish Temple never stood on the Temple Mount'.

There is NO reason to suppose that any 'international control' which would be at all effective in securing everyone's rights to their holy sites is going to be tolerated by all parties.  NONE.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


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



Of course that is not true.

There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine.

The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 13, 2013)

Indofred,  _et al,_

I thank you for the straight forward way in which you approach the interrogatives.

In an attempt to make the dialog manageable, the Asperger's in me says:  Start with Issue #1.



Indofred said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> ...


*(PREFACE)*

The response you gave answers the question, What Kind of State?  But it doesn't truly answer if there "should be a state."  Of course, clearly the inference here is that you don't agree with that either.

*(INTRO & REFERENCE)*

Humanity and civilization evolve at different rates, depending on the time period and the culture.  Clearly, various forms of slavery and involuntary servitude _(using it as an example only)_ was considered perfectly normal and an acceptable practice for more than four millennium.  In fact, speaking on the overall development of the species, it has only been about two centuries _(less than one one-hundredth of a percent of human written history)_ that slavery, bondage, and involuntary servitude has become unacceptable as a practice.  You could not use today's moral and ethical values and expect them to be acceptable in the shadow of Alexander the Great's realm, the Imperial Senate of Rome, the Egyptian dynasty of Macedonian kings, the Court of Sheiks in Arabia, or before the throne in the Persian Achaemenid Empire.  It was only two hundred years ago that the monopoly held by the Royal African Company was broken and the world demand opened the slave trade to all off the coast.  It was only a hundred and fifty years ago _(January 1, 1863)_ Emancipation Proclamation was signed.  The point here is that what is ethical, humanitarian, and acceptable changes over time.  And this must be kept in mind when trying to apply what is politically correct _(ideas, policies, and behavior aimed at minimizing alienation of and discrimination against politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups)_ today, in comparison to what was acceptable when decisions of historical importance were made.

Keeping in mind, that it was more than a century ago that the idea of a Jewish National Home emerged, what was the position held by the principle parties in conflict today.  For this, we have to examine one of the key, founding documents, that set the tone and the intent of the Arab-Jewish relationship.  There is no question that "first" among such documents would be the agreement reached by His Royal Highness the Emir Faisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ _(the most senior of the Arab leaders of the time and Hashemite dynasty.)_, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann _(President of the Zionist Organization, and the first President of the State of Israel)_, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization. 

_*SOURCE: *_ Faisal-Weizmann agreement/Non-UN document (3 January 1919)
The language in this agreement was so instrumental, that some of it is repeated over and over again, in follow-on historical documents.  Clearly, it appears in the Keystone document known as "The Mandate of Palestine." 

The Preamble says in part:

"realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, -"​
Oddly enough, it was the beginnings of the two-state solution.  An Arab State and a Palestine State.  Back then, the Jews were considered Palestinians.

"Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto."​
_*NOTE:*  With an open mind, I encourage you to read it.  It is a one page agreement, but enormously important._​
The point of collapse surely was the part where the Arab and Zionist Leadership mutually agreed:

"The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress."​
*(COMMENT)*

There is no question that Arab and Zionist Leadership understood what the intentions were of each other.

The Zionist wanted a home where they could be safe.  Were both parties wrong?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> "While that is nice in theory it seldom works in practice. International control seems to sanest because religions that are so antagonistic as they are now - can seldom be trusted to act sanely. "
> 
> Coyote, the same can be said for 'international control'.   The Arab League nations started their boycott against 'Zionism' over 75 years ago.  They also beggared and ejected some 950,000 of their citizenry for being Jewish.  They have refused to allow Magen Dovid Adom to be part of the 'International Red Cross/ Crescent' Society.   And when one of them - Jordan - had control over part of Jerusalem, the Jews of East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed out of their homes.  And somewhere around 28,000 graves of Jews  in the Mt of Olives cemetery were desecrated.  Headstones of Jewish graves were used as paving stones - with the inscriptions UP - and to line sewer channels.



That's why I said Jordanian control would not be an option but international control does not have to mean Arab League control.  Given Israeli policies towards the Muslim Quarter, it's building of Jewish-only apartments there - I would not trust Israeli control.



> Do you truly imagine that such 'governments' as continue to keep 'Mein Kampf' in print from government-owned presses would have any consideration for Jewish people's sacred sites?



International control means multiple countries or UN.  Yes, I would.  Mein Kampf is in print around the world.  It's called free speech 



> Oh, and as has been discussed previously, a very prominent archaeologist has sold out the profession to politics by adding his voice to the lying noise by the current Waqf that 'The Jewish Temple never stood on the Temple Mount'.
> 
> There is NO reason to suppose that any 'international control' which would be at all effective in securing everyone's rights to their holy sites is going to be tolerated by all parties.  NONE.



There is no reason to suppose Israeli control would be any better.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

No reason, other than history (1967-today).


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> No reason, other than history (1967-today).



I still prefer the option of international control - such as by the UN.  That way we can be sure that all religions will be respected and we can hope that the cities diversity will remain intact.


----------



## toastman (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Calling the Zionist immigration an 'invasion' is just part of the Arab propaganda campaign. 
The European Jews were invited by the British and it was the British who also ENCOURAGED Zionist immigration. Since the land was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, and was controlled by the British, it was their decision to invite the Jews to what is now called Israel. 
The British Recognized their historical right and their need to have their own state .


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Of course that is not true. There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine. The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths._"


You missed the point entirely, Tinny.

I said nothing about multiple ethnic and religious groups _residing in_ Jerusalem.

I was talking about various ethnic and religious groups *controlling* Jerusalem.

Big difference.

And my contention that multiple groups have controlled Jerusalem over time is entirely true and accurate.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 13, 2013)

_et al,_

Of the possible solutions to the control of Jerusalem, there is going to be no perfect answers.  Someone is going to dispute the authority and claim discrimination and some prior historical claim; and the conflict will continue.

The critical pitfall to "International Trusteeship" _(new phrase to describe a Mandate or Protectorate)_ is that, with rare exception, the Arab Regional Community challenges the leadership and intimidates them with the threat of violence.  There is no modern day state that wants to repeat the mistakes of the post-War allied powers.  No matter how well intended, the Regional Arab Community seriously mauled the mandatories to the point that no one really wants anything to do with them.  They need a King of the Hejaz to implement rule over Jerusalem; which they lost.  And even such a King would have to make some serious investments in infrastructure and civil service reform to make it all come together.  That leaves it squarely in the realm of His Royal Highness, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  His Majesty is the only stable regional leader that is beyond intimidation and yet, understands the ways of the general indigenous population of Jerusalem.  In effect, the UN would have to promote a new King of the Hejaz; if you could even get him to consider it as a Saudi protectorate.

You may ask, what is the difference between having HRH Abdullah II  of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and that of HM, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?  Good question!

Saudi Arabia is immensely wealth; and is not a bordering state.  HM has great experience at administering the protective umbrella over other places of holy significance _(Mecca & Medina)_.   King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, if HM were to take on such a responsibility, would do it for the right reasons, because HM strongly believes that such an efforts are an Arab and Islamic duty.  HM commands the respect of International Community, as well as every member of the Regional Community.  HM is strong, but fair and can maintain a diplomatic dialog with the Israeli, as well as, the Arabs; being someone that can be trusted to consider all sides of the issues at hand and make an uncorrupted decision.    

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> Of the possible solutions to the control of Jerusalem, there is going to be no perfect answers.  Someone is going to dispute the authority and claim discrimination and some prior historical claim; and the conflict will continue.
> 
> ...





> No matter how well intended, the Regional Arab Community seriously mauled the mandatories to the point that no one really wants anything to do with them.



Indeed, and it was their right to act against foreign intervention.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 13, 2013)

*Off topic posts regarding the discussion of anti-semitism and racism have been moved to a new thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/298322-anti-semitism-and-racism.html

If you want to continue those discussions, please take it there - it is largely unmoderated aside from site wide rules.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Of course that is not true. There were many Christians and Jews living in Jerusalem and other places in Palestine. The Zionist invasion caused the displacement of many people of all faiths._"
> ...



You are missing the point.

Muslims, Christians and Jews had lived there for centuries.

It was not until the Zionists came along to pig the place for themselves that it was turned up side down displacing many people.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



That's simply not true.  Jews have been displaced from Jerusalem throughout history, including during the period between 1948-1967.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...





> including during the period between 1948-1967.



That is what I said.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

No, you said that things were turned upside down and people started being displaced when "the Zionists came along."  That is false.


----------



## Caroljo (Jun 13, 2013)

kondor3 said:


> historybefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > _sure you can... You'll just probably find that i agree with you._
> ...



^^^^ditto^^^^^


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

What "foreign intervention?"



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how well intended, the Regional Arab Community seriously mauled the mandatories to the point that no one really wants anything to do with them.
> ...


*(QUESTION)*

Who intervened and when?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> No, you said that things were turned upside down and people started being displaced when "the Zionists came along."  That is false.



If you look at the time around 1917 that is when the place started to turn to crap.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> What "foreign intervention?"
> 
> ...



Those foreigners were in Palestine doing what?


----------



## patrickcaturday (Jun 13, 2013)

> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Its time for my self-evaluation.
> ...




*I guess that I should not be surprised but I ruefully have to admit that I am.  The Zionists I have known seem to have a cultural trait of arrogance, but you have turned it into an art form.  All you have proven to me is that you have megalomaniac tendencies well I guess everyone has a right to their own opinions but all I will say is you have not impressed me. *


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

patrickcaturday said:


> The Zionists I have known seem to have a cultural trait of arrogance, but you have turned it into an art form.



Thanks!


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

There are all kinds of people, today's Palestinians call foreigners.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

If you are talking about Jewish Immigrants, then they are not true foreigners.  All throughout the Ottoman Empire, a succession of Sultans encouraged Jewish Immigration.  The Administrative Territory of Palestine was considered their home.  But there was no restriction on the Immigration.  In fact, as late as 1870, the Sultan Abdul Aziz allocated the "Alliance Israelite Universelle" 2600 dunams of land east of Jaffa for the establishment of a school of agriculture and also granted permission for importing all kinds of tools and machinery free of taxes and customs."_ (Ottoman Sultans and Their Jewish Subjects)_.

By 1919, Emir Faisal, extended an open invitation for unrestricted immigration into the region of Palestine.  The Jews were not true foreigners, but under Arab royal decree to immigrate, under Ottoman sanction.  This actual language was copied verbatim into the Mandate, pursuant to the Covenant and Agreement of the Arab Emir.

As for the Allied Powers, the territory was Ottoman, and under the provisions of Article 132, Treaty of Sevres (1920), Turkey _(successor to the Ottomans)_ "renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty."  So, the Allied Powers were not foreigners.  And Article 95, of the treaty says:  "The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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."  With the Arab Emir agreeing to the commission to survey.

So I ask again, who are you declaring as foreigners?  From 1492, when Sultan Bayezid II accepted the exiled Jews from Italy, Spain and Portugal, and when Sultan Abdulhamid is making plans for installing 200,000 Jewish immigrants from Russia in the south east (AKA: Palestine), and then Arab Emir invitation decree, and then the Treaty which places Palestine in the hands of the Allied Powers, when did the "foreigners" arrive.

What foreigners?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > No, you said that things were turned upside down and people started being displaced when "the Zionists came along."  That is false.
> ...



Clearly, you've never been to Israel. 

The Zionists have turned crap into a garden.


----------



## toastman (Jun 13, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



Anything the Jews touch turns to gold


----------



## Intense (Jun 13, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



No I'm not, nor am I confusing Israels short comings with It's Right to exist. Zionism, to me, by definition means a Jewish State. I'm neither a Citizen of Israel or Jewish. I don't see that as my business, anymore than I would have an interest in Saudi Arabia choosing to be Sharia. Here in USA, We have chosen a path that, at least in theory, tries to protect and preserve Individual Rights without regard to gender or religion. Personally, that is my preference. What I am saying to you, as a witness, before the One True God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, is that my remaining true to your Faith, you are less likely to be the servant of Injustice, be you Jew or Muslim. God first in all things leaves little room for backsliding, scamming others, or compounding the damage. Christ was not the first to proclaim doing something other than returning evil for evil. There is a better way. Ezekiel Chapter 18 is a favorite of mine. Make no mistake, I support Israel's right to exist, as a matter of faith.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> There are all kinds of people, today's Palestinians call foreigners.
> 
> ...



You are trying to confuse the issue.

There were the Jews who immigrated on their own to live in the holy land. Then there were the Jews who were imported by the Zionists to take over the country. They were two separate, unrelated groups of people.

The immigration policy when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire were no longer valid.


----------



## toastman (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



There was no country called Palestine at the time....was there ever???

and stop with the "came to take over the land" propaganda


----------



## Intense (Jun 13, 2013)

*Thread Cleaned. Zone 2 Posting Rules apply. Pleace keep it on topic.*


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 13, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

Yes, to an extent I agree.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are trying to confuse the issue.
> 
> There were the Jews who immigrated on their own to live in the holy land. Then there were the Jews who were imported by the Zionists to take over the country. They were two separate, unrelated groups of people.
> 
> The immigration policy when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire were no longer valid.


*(COMMENT)*

After the Ottoman Empire, there was:



			
				Article IV said:
			
		

> *All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale*, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
> 
> *SOURCE: * Faisal-Weizmann agreement/Non-UN document (3 January 1919)



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Jun 13, 2013)

OP, you realize those same questions can vary and also the same concerns are to be addressed by the other side. This is a vast world with people with many different views and it isn't simply black and white as you see it. 

Now, the irony of this 'post quiz' you've entertained us with is that you've given us a general rundown of who we're dealing with. 

The same arrogant and extremist views shared by Likud officials in the Israeli government and is looked down upon around the world. 

It's a shame some people still have these extreme black and white views, either a Jewish state or a Palestinian state and that's it. They come from both sides but honestly we see it commonly from the israeli side, the Palestinians on the other hand are just asking for independence and their rights. 

Even though you may whitewash their intentions with your own fabrications.


----------



## toastman (Jun 13, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> OP, you realize those same questions can vary and also the same concerns are to be addressed by the other side. This is a vast world with people with many different views and it isn't simply black and white as you see it.
> 
> Now, the irony of this 'post quiz' you've entertained us with is that you've given us a general rundown of who we're dealing with.
> 
> ...



Then start a thread about it addressing the questions from the other side. I'm actually serious, it might be an interesting thread ...


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 13, 2013)

That is  very interesting, Rocco - it certainly appears as though Faisal was trying to get Jews to move into his territory to be a middle class and to develop business opportunities for people to invest in and broaden the economic base from mere subsistence agriculture.


----------



## toastman (Jun 13, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



Well it's not irrelevant, but it would kind of be like derailing the thread. 
I would definitely partake in the thread id it is started


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> Yes, to an extent I agree.
> 
> ...



Two foreigners make an agreement.

OK???


----------



## pbel (Jun 13, 2013)

historybefore67 said:


> this is directed primarily to the anti-israel/pro-"palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a jewish state of israel?
> 
> ...


*1.  Y
2.  D
3.  N
4.  A
5.  Y*


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 13, 2013)

pbel said:


> historybefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > this is directed primarily to the anti-israel/pro-"palestinian" posters...
> ...


Only 60% right Phillip. Go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 13, 2013)

Why is it that when I click on page 12 I get page 11?

Anyone else having this Problem?


----------



## Roudy (Jun 14, 2013)

Intense said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Thanks for your honesty. Faith and its uses and abuses throughout human history can be a never ending thread. Many of those who believed that they were "staying true to their faith and God" were actually in total violation of their faith and God, as you know.  

I am not a "devout Jew" nor am I the type you would see walking on Saturdays or keeping Kosher. But my life experience has taught me to be weary of those who practice any religion to an extreme.  As a secular Jew born and raised in Muslim societies, I believe that Israel's right to exist is not only a matter of faith, but of necessity as well. And the only way to guarantee that there won't be another genocide or Holocaust committed upon Jews, just because of their faith.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jun 14, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



makes perfect sense. gather all the jews together in one small place, plop them down right in the middle of a hostile population that outnumbers them 100 to 1, abuse the native population and force them to live in refugee camps in neighbouring states endlessly  and generally act like jerks. i can think of no more sure way than that to insure any population from genocide and provide for a safe and secure homeland..


----------



## Connery (Jun 14, 2013)

*Thread cleaned again actions taken regarding offending poster.

The Administration and the Moderation Team are serious in their efforts to have a civil discourse as it pertains to the OP and any further posts which violate Zone 2 rules will be viewed in a more serious manner where infractions will be administered on a case by case basis.*


----------



## Indofred (Jun 14, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Indofred,  _et al,_
> 
> I thank you for the straight forward way in which you approach the interrogatives.
> 
> ...



How polite.

Should there be a state - no.

I firmly believe the state of Israel should never have come into existence as it's been nothing but the cause of death, suffering and misery.

The Zionists were wrong as the violent action to create the country was guaranteed problems and expand more extreme actions amongst displaced people.

Time has pretty much proven that.

However, that doesn't mean I don't think Jews have no right to live in that area.
As far as I'm concerned - had there been no Israel and immigration had been slower; I believe all could have lived together in peace.
Sadly, there was sudden mass immigration and a violent creation of a country, starting with terrorist attacks by the new, Jewish immigrants.
Again - historical fact and undisputed but one side wants it forgotten.

Has those events not come to pass; there would be no middle east situation as we see today.

As for safe - hardly.
All the more extreme elements want Israel gone and that war, should it ever happen, will kill thousands on both sides, regardless of who wins.
Hardly safe as it will happen sooner or later.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 14, 2013)

For those who think that the "Palestinians" support a two state solution, consider this:

Senior PA Official: ALL of Israel is Occupied Palestine | United with Israel

Sidenote: I didn't realize that Dr. Phil was a PA official.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 14, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Israel is the only thing that is preventing another genocidal anti Semitic maniac rising up to successfully kill Jews.  Anti Semetism is not a recent phenomenon, it is a disease that has been around for thousands of years and will continue to be around. The screams of "slaughter the Jews!" Did not start because of Israel, in fact Israel is the result of genocide after genocide after pogroms by various groups thought history, until Jews who are one of the most peaceful people in history, had enough.  

It is Jewish belief that in every generation a new evil will rise up to try eliminate the Jews.  Yesterday it was the Nazis and Hitler and today it's Iran's IslamoNazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al queda, etc. not much has changed except for the geographical location. Both of these evils say the same things that have been said about the Jews (and repeated by you), ie Jews are greedy, they are out to control the world, they only care about themselves, they think they are better than others and consider themselves 'chosen', they are bloodsucking vampires who enjoy killing non Jews, blah blah blah.  

The only difference is that this generation there is an Israel, which makes the animals think twice about the consequences of desiring to commit genocide upon the Jews.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 14, 2013)

Indofred said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred,  _et al,_
> ...


I wonder if Fred, the good Muslim convert, would ever say that Pakistan should never have been carved out of India.  Why did the Muslims have to have their own country?  Was it really that difficult for them to get along with the Hindus.  When you compare Israel to Pakistan, you don't see the same things you see happen in Pakistan where people are suicide bombed and car bombed because of their religious beliefs, their houses of worship destroyed as well as being thrown in jail rotting away because of some alleged blasphemy.  Maybe Fred could have some sympathy for the Shiites who are moving to Australia because of what Fred's Sunni brethren are doing to them.  And we have to remember that the Ahmadis have said that the only place they feel safe is in America.  After all, Fred must remember the time his brethren blew up two Ahmadi mosques where dozens of people were killed and dozens more injured.  Strange how the Muslims around the world have it in for Israel and are so quiet about what their fellow Muslims are doing to innocent others.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 14, 2013)

Fred the extremist, convert to Islam moron:



> I firmly believe the state of Israel should never have come into existence as it's been nothing but the cause of death, suffering and misery.



Now, you are either an ignorant related,  or totally uneducated, or both, to say something like that. Do you know the death and misery brought about by each of these Muslim govt.'s and the leaders upon their own people and neighboring countries, just in the 20th and 21st century?  No you don't. Or you don't want to.  

I suggest you read up each of their histories before vomiting the garbage you just did.


----------



## toastman (Jun 14, 2013)

Indofred said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred,  _et al,_
> ...



Spoken like a true Jihadist. This is Arab propaganda at its best folks. 

People like you who always question the justification of Israels existence need to stop bitching about the fact that Israel DOES exist. As a matter of fact, the sooner the Palestinians and hostile Arab States acknowledge that Israel does in fact exist in the Middle East and that she's not going anywhere, the sooner there could be peace.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 15, 2013)

toastman said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Israel is a fact of life and many people know no other home than Israel.
For that reason, I don't want Israel destroyed or even attacked but I do want to see the '67 borders restored as they should be under international law.
However, we now have the news of Israel building yet more illegal settlements in the occupied lands so attack is inevitable.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 15, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



I condemn all violence against innocents.
Yes, that does include violence against someone because they believe in something different to the belief structure of the attacker.

I also condemn collective punishment against a whole people, as we see with Israeli government mass murder in Gaza, because some of their number are daft enough to fire ineffective rockets into Israel.
Whilst I'm at it, I condemn Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza and their clear attempt to drive the people out by starvation.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 15, 2013)

Indofred said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


Kiss the 67 orders goodbye Freddy, that will never happen. There's a lot of upheaval going on in the Middle East now.  Maybe the Palestinians will get lucky and get shoved up the kazoo of one of these collapsed Muslim states. Short of that, its only a matter of time that Israel will be annexing the West Bank and calling it by its true name for thousands of years, Judeah and Samaria. Now repeat after me: praise to the Allah.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 15, 2013)

Roudy said:


> Kiss the 67 orders goodbye Freddy, that will never happen. There's a lot of upheaval going on in the Middle East now.  Maybe the Palestinians will get lucky and get shoved up the kazoo of one of these collapsed Muslim states. Short of that, its only a matter of time that Israel will be annexing the West Bank and calling it by its true name for thousands of years, Judeah and Samaria. Now repeat after me: praise to the Allah.



This is why there will eventually be another major war in the region.
Extremist hate speech will ensure death, destruction and misery for a long time to come.


----------



## toastman (Jun 15, 2013)

Indofred said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



You are under the assumption that Israel wouldn't be attacked if they hadn't built those settlements. Those who attack Israel also find some sort of justification. Even if there were no settlements, the enemies of Israel would find something else to complain about and some other bullshit reason to attack them.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 15, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



*Maybe Hoss can remember that this is the IP forum, not Islam-around-the-world forum and get back on topic.

As a reminder - there is a General Middle East forum where you can post these important facts.*


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 15, 2013)

Indofred,  _et al,_

Sometime, claims such as these, are not obvious in the reality of today.



Indofred said:


> I condemn all violence against innocents.
> 
> Yes, that does include violence against someone because they believe in something different to the belief structure of the attacker.


*(COMMENT)*

While you may say this, does the actual evidence support this?

Does this actually comply with the tenants and edicts of the Hamas Charter?



Indofred said:


> I also condemn collective punishment against a whole people, as we see with Israeli government mass murder in Gaza, because some of their number are daft enough to fire ineffective rockets into Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

Obviously, you have never been in a firefight, or in a place subject to rocket and mortar fire.

When someone shoots at you, the assumption is that they mean to kill you.  I've never heard of benevolent rocket and mortar fire.

*Collective Punishment:*​


			
				ARTICLE 33 said:
			
		

> No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
> 
> Pillage is prohibited.
> Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
> ...





			
				Statement by the President of the Security Council S/PRST/2010/19 said:
			
		

> The Security Council condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, reaffirms that any terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and reaffirms that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or ethnic group."
> 
> _*SOURCE:*_ ODS HOME PAGE





			
				Article 2 said:
			
		

> *Terrorism*
> 
> Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.​
> a. All cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law _*(see Special Note below)*_, shall not be regarded as an offence. This provision shall not apply to any act prejudicing the territorial integrity of any Arab State.
> ...



I was going to say, this is as easy as 1, 2, 3; but then, the more I thought, the more confusing it got.

The idea behind the allegation of "collective punishment" is based on a couple premises that the Palestinian hold dear, but are in contention.  

The premise that the entire State of Israel (under any border schema) is an Occupation.  Or, as some Palestinians say, anything West of the Jordan River is Occupied Territory.  The importance of this premise is that it makes any crime the Palestinians commit a "domestic" crime and not a violation of International Law.  Their argument is that Israel has no international border and therefore, they don't cross international triggers or tripwires.  But it also make every Israeli an illegal settler on Palestinian  Land.

The premise that any an all means are legal for the Palestinian to pursue in the struggle for self-determination.  There is no act that the Palestinians can perpetrate against the Israeli, since every Israeli is an illegal settler and fruit of a foreign invasion.  This has the subtext of the concept that collectively, since they are all criminals, they have no right to resist.  And that Israel, no having recognized borders, have no sovereign integrity they can legally defend.

This leads to the outcome that any and all security or means of military suppression of Palestinian activity that protects Israel is unlawful in itself.

*The Double-Edged Sword:*

Israel is a Member State of the United Nations.

Israel has established international boundaries or Armistice Arrangement with every adjacent Member State.  

Israel is protected by Article 51, of the UN Charter, and the established inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

If, as the Palestinians claim, there are no international boundaries _(Israel is wholly and entirely inside Palestine)_, then it is a "domestic issue," and has a consequence:  Israelis not subject to international law relative to the conflict with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are not subject to the protections under international law.  It becomes questionable if Israel _(not being an Arab State)_, is subject to an offense; under the Arab Convention.

If the Palestinians are going to claim that International Law applies, then it must make a case as to how it is not a domestic issue, but an international issue.  Otherwise, it becomes a case that the Israelis attempting to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of it's peoples, and to take, by whatever means necessary, measures to strengthen universal peace and its security.  That would mean against those Hostile Arab/Palestinian opposed to the Israeli right to independence.  Under the Arab Terrorism Convention, struggle by whatever means, for liberation of Israel and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence.

A really neat question, relative to the concept that Israel is a wholly subsidiary of Palestine, is whether or not Palestine is an Arab State?



Indofred said:


> I'm at it, I condemn Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza and their clear attempt to drive the people out by starvation.


*(COMMENT)*

Under Arab Convention, "all cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as an offence."  Thus, the quarantine of the Palestinian Aggressor in Gaza, trying to suppress the Israeli pursuit of Independence and its right to self-determination as an official policy of its government, it not only a "domestic matter" _(outside the rule of international law)_, but entirely legal.  It is not collective punishment, but an extension of the Arab approach of: "by any means."

*(EPILOG)*

Now, if the entire scenario is turned around, then Israel is recognized by the Palestinian as an independent state, outside of Palestine, the argument changes significantly. 

*(QUESTION)*

Which is it?  


Is Israel an Independent State, outside any claim by the Palestinians that it is Occupied?
Or is Israel a territorial subsidiary of Palestine, without borders, and occupies that land?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Jun 15, 2013)

Indofred said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Kiss the 67 orders goodbye Freddy, that will never happen. There's a lot of upheaval going on in the Middle East now.  Maybe the Palestinians will get lucky and get shoved up the kazoo of one of these collapsed Muslim states. Short of that, its only a matter of time that Israel will be annexing the West Bank and calling it by its true name for thousands of years, Judeah and Samaria. Now repeat after me: praise to the Allah.
> ...


Facts of life Freddy boy. Palestinians have not given any reason to believe that the compromises they are asking for, will actually bring peace and not put Israel's security in jeopardy. In fact they have proven the opposite. So on we go towards annexation.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 15, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> Indofred,  _et al,_
> 
> Sometime, claims such as these, are not obvious in the reality of today.
> 
> ...


Exactly, they speak from both sides of the mouth. "Peace" is just a ploy to make Israel more vulnerable to a final assault and destruction. The Hamas charter clearly says: "no peace treaties or negotiations with the Zionist entity are to be honored except if such treaties are used as deception to make the enemy weaker and for susceptible". 

I believe one should believe their own words, they say what they mean and mean what they say. What's so hard to understand. 

Yes of course the Palestinians will "talk" of peace to keep getting money from the US and naive other countries. Talk is cheap.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Jun 15, 2013)

It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 15, 2013)

BecauseIKnow,  _et al,_

I haven't started a defense of the "Occupation."



BecauseIKnow said:


> It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.


*(COMMENT)*

As a matter of fact, I have written a number of commentaries on the inappropriate administration and management of the "Occupied Territories" _(Gaza Strip and West Bank)_ by the Israelis.

The question I raise is an even more basic question.  


If the Palestinians recognized Israel as a sovereign and independent state?
...................................................OR......................................................
If the Palestinians claim that all of Israel is inside Palestine, that Israel is an illegitimate state with no recognizable borders?

It does make a difference.

If it is one, then none of the International Laws apply because it becomes an internal domestic issue of Palestine.  
If it is the other, then the Palestinians already give recognition to the State of Israel and now it is just a matter of negotiating borders.
*(FOOTNOTE)*

When the Arabs Themselves Denied There Was a Palestine   _*LINK --->*_ http://www.nysun.com/opinion/when-the-arabs-themselves-denied-there-was/87607/

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Jun 15, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.


You don't get it Habbibi, it's the Palestinians that want a Jew-free Muslim only shariah shithole.  The Jews are currently host to almost 2 million Muslim Arabs who live as Israeli citizens with full rights. Its the Palestinians that keep saying nothing short of the destruction of ALL of Israel will bring about peace.

So what did the Arabs do when the Jews forced their own people to leave Gaza and handed over the keys to a Jew free Gaza to the Arabs?  They elected a terrorist govt (as a sign that they want peace with the Jews <LOL>) named Hamas, started shooting rockets into Israeli cities, sent suicide bomber after suicide bomber, called for the destruction of Israel on a daily basis, and turned Gaza into an Islamist Shariah shitpile.  

Now if that isn't incentive for Israelis to give MORE land to the Arabs, I don't know what is.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Jun 15, 2013)

Roudy said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.
> ...



Habibi, that's  your presentation of line of events. Anyways, I don't have time right know so I gotta go.


----------



## toastman (Jun 15, 2013)

BIK, you forgot to mention what Abbas recently mentioned regarding pre- conditions for a peace process:
The release of ALL - not some - but ALL Palestinian prisoners, which includes those convicted of murdering Israelis. 

So , I ask you, do you agree with this pre - condition ?


----------



## Roudy (Jun 15, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...


Keep my shwarma warm I'll join you in a minute. Grab me some extra tahini sauce.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 15, 2013)

The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 15, 2013)

Indofred said:


> _The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked. That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war._


You keep confusing 'extremism' with 'refusal to surrender'.

The Israelis have no doubt that they will be attacked again.

That's why the window of opportunity to negotiate-back the Golan and Jerusalem has evaporated forevermore.

And, if the Arabs ever get their $hit together again, to pose another genuine threat to Israel, the Israelis will win again - hugely - on a scale to make 1967 and 1973 look like gentle love-taps by comparison.


----------



## toastman (Jun 15, 2013)

Indofred said:


> The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
> That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war.



Extremism or no extremism, Israel will likely be attacked anyway. Even if their weren't settlements, even if Israel returned the Golan to Syria, even if Israel ended the Naval and aerial blockade of Gaza, their would still be a state of belligerency against Israel. Or in more simpler terms, regardless of what Israel does, the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon will still find some sort of bullshit justification to attack Israel and blame them for their problems


----------



## Coyote (Jun 15, 2013)

toastman said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
> ...



I'm not sure.  It might remove fuel from the fire and gain support for Israel.

Although at this point, I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 15, 2013)

Coyote said:


> "..._I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan._"


That seems accurate. The Israelis need a Tactical Edge on their Syrian border and the Golan Heights gives them the command of the terrain that they need to keep the Syrians at-bay.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 15, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > "..._I'm not sure Israel can realistically return Golan._"
> ...



I was thinking that with the uncertainty and civil war in Syria, it would be suicide to return Golan.  At some point, they should, but not without stability and security.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 15, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Ah, the Civil War as a rationalization for temporarily not returning it? Makes sense.

As to return on some future date, I'm having a really hard time envisioning *any* scenario in which Israel could enjoy a measure of 'security' with Syria sufficient for Israel to surrender its present huge Tactical Advantage in possessing the Heights.

Consequently, I really don't think it's in-the-cards, regardless of whether it _should_ happen or not. But that's just me.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 15, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I agree...it's impossible to guess what is going to happen with Syria and I can't see Israel returning Golan at this point.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 15, 2013)

Or ever.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 15, 2013)

toastman said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked.
> ...


I totally agree. Anybody that is familiar with the mindset of the people in that region knows that nothing short of the total destruction of  Israel is an acceptable result. 

Sure, they will put up with a peace treaty here and negotiations there, but only to deceive Israel into a false sense of security and make her more vulnerable. And that's exactly what the Hamas Charter says.


----------



## toastman (Jun 15, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> It's funny when the pro israel crowd brings up Hamas when Hamas has no say in the two state solution and are isolated in Gaza only. Israel refuses to allow their representatives into a negotiation and they deal with the PA whom they claim to always support and the PA is technically their own stooge government. Yet they still back away from a solution. They want israel to keep expanding and to stay that way. They want it to be all Jewish land. Just as Roudy even said in the other thread, he wants all of the West Bank to be occupied and wants rename it Judea and Samaria. He's accusing the other side of wanting all of Israel when in reality it's him and people like him who want all Palestine. Actions speak far louder than words, Israel is the country occupying land daily and trying to annex occupied land through brute force. Even the US has admitted this, and Europe is concerned of it. The Palestinians aren't going out trying to usurp land. So Rocco's whole waste of time was pointless, actions speak far louder than words Rocco, no matter how much bs you pull out of your ass to defend the occupation it's literally just not the reality. Enough of unrealistic methods of trying to deter a two state solution. The whole world is moving towards a two state solution.



You're right, it is the PA that is involved in any peace treaty, right? 
Here ya go:
Rajoub: All of Israel is 'Occupied' - Middle East - News - Israel National News

*"All of Israel is Occupied"*

Funny how you say it's Israel who doesn't want peace when it is in fact the Palestinians who have offered NOTHING for peace, except for ridiculous pre-conditions:

Abbas wants Israel to release Palestinian prisoners - UPI.com

*"Abbas wants the release of all Palestinian prisoners before any peace talks"
*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 15, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> BecauseIKnow,  _et al,_
> 
> I haven't started a defense of the "Occupation."
> 
> ...





> If the Palestinians claim that all of Israel is inside Palestine, that Israel is an illegitimate state with no recognizable borders?



Yep, true.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 15, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Yep, true._"


Not to worry, Tinny... within a couple of decades, Palestine is going to be viewed as a legitimate state with no territory remaining under its control to call its own. A  brief burst of Government-in-Exile status and then it will fizzle-out and fade away, as the rest of the world forgets about it.

Consolidation and mop-up operations continue...


----------



## Ha3mme8tt (Jun 16, 2013)

Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.


----------



## Lipush (Jun 16, 2013)

Yeah, that was the question, lol


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2013)

Ha3mme8tt said:


> Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.


Legitimate resistance, of course. I have sources that insist there is no terrorism in the hearts of Islamic Arabs anywhere in the world. It's worded in all their charters and constitutions.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > _The extremism expressed by pro Israeli posters in this thread is exactly why Israel will be attacked. That stupidity will be the cause of so much misery, regardless of who seems to win the war._
> ...





> You keep confusing 'extremism' with 'refusal to surrender'.



Indeed, like the Palestinians who refuse to surrender.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Indeed, like the Palestinians who refuse to surrender._"


Touche'. Not extremism, in their case, but terrorism in pursuit of political objectives, from an incredibly unstable and unsustainable position, destined to be squeezed-out and scattered to the four winds and assimilated piecemeal elsewhere in the coming years.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Yep, true._"
> ...



Israel's greatest threat is Palestinians who do not live in Palestine.

Ghada Karmi, Ali Abuminah, Noura Erekat, Huwaida Arraf, Rafeef Ziadah, Laila El Haddad etc.

So keep kicking them out.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Only in the short term, Tinny... the danger only exists for a few years or a decade or two after they're ejected... and then it fizzles and sputters out.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Indeed, like the Palestinians who refuse to surrender._"
> ...



Defending your country is a terrorism in pursuit of political objectives?

Interesting concept.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



"The Old will die and the young will forget."

How old is that quote?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> _"The Old will die and the young will forget." How old is that quote?_


Sixty-five years old, if I've got it right. That's a mere blip on the scope, Tinny, the way that Jewish folk measure time. Day-before-yesterday kind of stuff. They're workin' on it, and, within a generation or two after they've completed their consolidation efforts and your kindred have been scattered into surrounding countries and reestablished and living happy lives, the old boy's prediction will have come true. The game-clock continues to run down.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Wel, Mr.Tinmore, how can the kids forget when they attend summer camps like this?


Summer camp in Gaza: Kids learn to abduct Israelis - Israel Today | Israel News


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Don't look now, Tinny, but your kindred really don't *HAVE* any country to speak of...







But Hamas and Hezbollah will launch rockets at Israeli civilian population centers even during periods of complete passivity on the part of the Israelis.

*That's not 'resistance' or 'defense' - that's stupidly poking the beehive with a stick.*

Which strikes me as an bit *more* crazy  ...by an order of magnitude, actually.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Indeed, and Israel owns none of that. Eventually that will come back and bite them on the ass.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Indeed, and Israel owns none of that. Eventually that will come back and bite them on the ass._"


Given that there's not much else for you to cling to, continue to hang onto that illusion (delusion?) if it brings you any comfort, but, sadly for you-and-yours, it changes nothing in the Real World, as the game-clock continues to tick down.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Israel is a member of the U.N, yet they down own the land called Israel ? 
LOL
United Nations Member States

Theres Israel

But then we go over to P

United Nations Member States

Oh look, no Palestine

Oh Tinnie hahahahae


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Israel is a member, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Keep hanging on to that.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I'm not the one clinging on to a fantasy, you are Tinnie, as Kondor just pointed out.

Notice how there's no Palestine blah blah blah blah


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Occupations always come to an end and the support for Palestine has increased dramatically over the last decade or two.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


If there's any post that deserves a blah blah blah blah blah response, it's this one


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Occupations always come to an end_..."


Unless the indigenous population is displaced in favor of a new one.



> "..._and the support for Palestine has increased dramatically over the last decade or two._"



1. Good luck quantifying that one, but, even if it's true.

2. Fat lot of good it's done your kindred.

3. By the time you get enough global weight on your side to actually effect change, the last scrap of Palestinian-controlled land will have been annexed a good 50 years or more in the past already.

If know you don't want to hear it, Tinny, but it's over.

Palestine is like a chicken with its head freshly off... still flapping about the barnyard, but already dead.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Occupations always come to an end_..."
> ...



It is illegal to annex land that you occupy. That is why Israel has none.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Arabs / Muslims will destroy Israel. Keep masturbating to that, Mr Hamas spokesperson.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


But there would have to be a country, nation, and people called Palestinians at that time,  for the Israelis to "occupy".  

And there NEVA EVA was.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

OK, if this is true, then it comes with consequences.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > If the Palestinians claim that all of Israel is inside Palestine, that Israel is an illegitimate state with no recognizable borders?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

By extension, the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian then becomes an internal domestic, Palestinian matter.  

As an internal domestic matter, totally within Palestine, then no International Law applies; no humanitarian law and no criminal law.  Israel is in violation of nothing.  It becomes a case of the Israelis attempting to realize their right of self-determination.

In effect, it becomes a civil war, for independence, between Israelites (approx 8 million)  and the Palestinians (approx 4 million).

Is that what you are telling me?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Jun 16, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, if this is true, then it comes with consequences.
> 
> ...


Yes. Except, Israel already won this civil war first in 1948 and then in 1967.

Some people arrive at parties a little too late, that's all.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, if this is true, then it comes with consequences.
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > _"The Old will die and the young will forget." How old is that quote?_
> ...



Cracks in Israel's wall.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VelkdSKOWgI]The Arabic Hour interviews an anti-war activist, Medea Benjamin - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Tinmore, I commend you for your persistence in expressing your bullshit mindset over the "Israel has no civilians, borders or land" comments, but the time has come to give up. You're making a fool out of yourself and even your pro Palestinian buddies have not once come to your aid to back up your idiotic claims , because even they know they're stupid.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> Tinmore, I commend you for your persistence in expressing your bullshit mindset over the "Israel has no civilians, borders or land" comments, but the time has come to give up. You're making a fool out of yourself and even your pro Palestinian buddies have not once come to your aid to back up your idiotic claims , because even they know they're stupid.



Show me where Israel ever legally acquired any land.

Cue song and dance
3
2
1


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Deflection !


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Show me how Palestine acquired any of its borders....


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Can't you think of anything better than dragging in this Benjamin weirdo, Tinnie?  Maybe Tinnie can put on a wig and a dress and join these silly Code Pink Ladies on their next nonsensical adventure.  Meanwhile, instead of watching Banjamin, I would much rather watch this video.
Disputing Occupation: Israel?s Borders and Settlements in International Law | Israel Video Network


----------



## Trajan (Jun 16, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?



yes



> 2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?



whomever owns it, Israel does right ow, its theres. 



> 3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?



yes.

 right of return? iffy, maybe compensation as coyote said could be made, but it appears thats off the table as I  think the average palis would accept it,  but their masters wouldn't let them. 



> 4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.



A




> 5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?



yes I do, the average Joe Palestinian wants peace and to live their lives like anyone else,  but, we don't get to hear from them, all moderating influences, those advocating sincere and meaningful negotiation are deemed collaborators and sent packing, usually terminally.....theres a large peace advocacy and collaboration-compensation movement in Israel, wheres the Palestinian  peace advocacy movement?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> Show me how Palestine acquired any of its borders....



Toastman, don't fall into his trap.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Cracks in Israel's wall_..."


Don't pin your hopes on Israeli fifth-columnists and surrender-monkeys, Tinny... such cracks in the wall are nothing more than microscopic flecks of chipped plaster that are easily spackled-over and which signify nothing, in light of the tremendous thickness of that stone wall.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, if this is true, then it comes with consequences.
> 
> ...


*Brilliant.*

A decades-long Civil War between _Jewish-Israeli-Palestinians_ and _Muslim-Arab-Palestinians_?

Absolutely brilliant.

And modern-day Israel 'seceeded' from Palestine and legally defined its borders by force of arms (_reaffirmed in large part by armistice and peace treaties between the Israelis and those outside nations that aided the Palestinians in the opening round of that civil war and which were ultimately obliged to cede land or to concede boundaries adjoining their own national land-mass_).

In much the same way that the United States 'seceeded' from the British Empire.

Unless, of course, the Brits want to challenge the 'legality' of our borders, and we're obliged by International Law to give everything back, 'cause our borders aren't 'legal'. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Rep headed your way.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Show me how Palestine acquired any of its borders....
> ...



You mean the 'indeed' trap?


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



Very well said Kondor 

I would also like to add that anyone with the least bit of knowledge knows that it is quite an oxy-moron to question or de- legitimize the existence of Israel or her border,land and civilians when it is  so called 'Palestine' that is arguably the most disputed contradictory piece of land in terms of her existence (before and now) as a country/nation/state.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I watched your video. I have seen it before.

Point out something Medea Benjamin said that was not true then I will point out something in your video that was not true.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Hossly, don't fall for the 'indeed' trap Tinnie has set up for you !!!!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Show me how Palestine acquired any of its borders....
> ...



Just duck the question like everyone else does.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Tinmore, if you were an animal, you'd be a ....yup ! You guessed it !


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> OK, if this is true, then it comes with consequences.
> 
> ...





> In effect, it becomes a civil war



Show me where an occupation can be part of a civil war.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

You are exactly correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

My point exactly.  It is not "Occupied Territory," but territory controlled by one side or the other in the civil war.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Jun 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...


He's right. Didn't Muslims from neighboring countries pour into Lebanon and turn Christian majority Lebanon, into a Hezbollah Islamist Shariah dominated Muslim majority failed state?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> You are exactly correct.
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting that both sides are Palestinians?


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



Are you suggesting that all of Israel is occupied ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



No, Israel is not occupied.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Ok, are you suggesting that cities like Tel - Aviv and Haifa are occupied ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Yes.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

There are no words. Just...



It must be fun living in that fantasy world of yours


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Tell us Tinnie, are Haifa and Tel Aviv under _military_ occupation ??


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Are you suggesting that both sides are Palestinians?_"


Let's pursue that line of thought for a moment...

Is it not true that in 1948, prior to Israel's Declaration of Statehood, that there were...

1. Jewish Palestinians

2. Muslim Palestinians

3. Christian Palestinians

..and that during the period 1947-1948, a civil war had broken-out between (1) and (2)?


----------



## Roudy (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Herein lies the problem:  nut jobs like Tinmore posing as the "moderates" in the conflict, just like the radicals and extremists, they want the dismantling and destruction of the state of Israel. 

So what's the difference and who does Israel have to negotiate "peace" with? Nothing and nobody.  Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. 

Onwards to annexation of the West Bank we go.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


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



Yes.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Is it a military occupation ?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What color is the sky in your little world?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore,  _et al,_

For several months now, I have argued that the Palestinian position is totally wrong, and that Israel is Israel; a separate and distinct nation with borders, defending its sovereignty.  You have consistently argued that Israel has no borders.  That it is a subdivision of the nation of Palestine, and totally contained within Palestine.

Shifting gears, let's see where that takes us.



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

If there is no State of Israel, then it must be your Palestine.

The Jewish, being permanent residents of Palestine, if not Israelis - must be Palestinian.

If a conflict erupts between the Jewish and the Arabs, it must be a civil war, entirely contained within Palestine; between Palestinians; Palestinian Jews versus Palestinian Arabs.

Then it stands to reason that any territory controlled by the Jewish, is rebel-Palestinian held territory and not occupied territory by a state that does not exist.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> 
> For several months now, I have argued that the Palestinian position is totally wrong, and that Israel is Israel; a separate and distinct nation with borders, defending its sovereignty.  You have consistently argued that Israel has no borders.  That it is a subdivision of the nation of Palestine, and totally contained within Palestine.
> 
> ...



You are ignoring the fact that Israel was created inside Palestine by foreigners.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



And "Palestine" was created on Judean land by foreigners (they were called the Romans), dumbass.  What does that have to do with a bunch of modern day Arabs?


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  _et al,_
> ...



You're ignoring the fact that the land called Palestine was not a country/nation/state . 

You're also ignoring the fact the the Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition plan which would have given them a state . They are paying for there bad decision


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._You are ignoring the fact that Israel was created inside Palestine by foreigners._"


Nahhhhh... by a combination of Old Jewish Residents and Newcomer Immigrants and Refugees who assumed a Jewish-Palestinian identity the moment that they touched upon Jewish-Palestinian soil - who were unwillingly obliged to engage in civil war with their Muslim-Palestinian fellow 'regionalists' (_can't say 'countrymen' because none existed beforehand_) - and fueled by the Jewish Agency, which, by the time civil war broke out, was, itself, an old 'resident' of Palestine, and native to the soil. Ahhhhh... the joys of immigration...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Actually Palestine was created by post WWI treaties. It was populated by Muslims, Christians, and Jews without distinction.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Created as a what ?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


As an Administrative Division of the British Mandate for TransJordan?

That doesn't sound like a 'country' to me...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



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

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

So where were the agreements made with its neighbors concerning the borders


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 16, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


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



You haven't been on this board long enough to know that Tinmore doesn't know it's now the year 2013, he has a fixation with borders, and he treats this whole conflict like it's some kind of abstract philosophy.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2013)

And did the Palestinian _Jews_ and the Palestinian _Christians_ agree to all of this?


----------



## Trajan (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



yes, it was, and you're missing a few countries their professor....Sykes-Picot et al.


----------



## Trajan (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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



and there in is the issue- Israel is not going away, period fulls top end. Its called REALITY, deal with it instead of churning up the same old angst, the boat has sailed. 

when the palis stop buying the BS that their masters peddle and stop and realize they have been used as pawns, then maybe, things will get on a real road to peace.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I never waste my time on that crackpot.  However, since you once claimed that you were a "good Christian" with your ancestry from Western Europe (and who puts sugar and milk on his grits thinking oatmeal is what you call grits) and since you must be aware of what is happening to the Christian Copts in Egypt, can you show us any articles where this Code Pink Lady has ever criticized what is happening to the Christians in Egypt (and in other Muslim countries) or is she just stuck on Israel.  Strange isn't it, how these Code Pink Ladies never seem to criticize other countries in the Middle East.  Why is this, Tinnie, when terrible things are happening there to innocent people?  Since you apparently admire her because she is against Israel, perhaps as a "good Christian" you can E-mail her and tell her how great it would be if she and her silly group would also concentrate on what is happening to "your fellow Christians" in the Middle East.  I don't think any of us would snitch on you to Hamas for doing this.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Ou ou pick me to answer the question in bold ! Please pick me Hossfly !!


----------



## Coyote (Jun 16, 2013)

Why does Tinmore required by you to care about anything other than Palestinians?  Isn't he Palestinian?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


O.K., you're at bat. Drive in a run or two.


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



It's because the Jews aren't involved Professor Hoss !!!


----------



## toastman (Jun 16, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Why does Tinmore required by you to care about anything other than Palestinians?  Isn't he Palestinian?



uhh what ?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 16, 2013)

toastman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Why does Tinmore required by you to care about anything other than Palestinians?  Isn't he Palestinian?
> ...


I guess Coyote wasn't around to catch Tinnie saying he was a Christian with Pennsylvania Dutch, English, and either Scottish or Irish heritage.  He never said he was a Palestinian, but by now from his posts I think many viewers believe that he is either a Gazan who came to America just like other people do from around the world or if he was born here, his ancestry is Gazan.
I don't think anyone holds it against him since all our ancestors came from someplace else to settle in America.  However, it does give us a good idea why he is always claiming that Israel is really set in the country of Palestine.  No doubt this is the mind set of many who came from that area.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Then why didn't the Arabs agree to this map and decide to attack the Jews.  Why from all the British and French mandate divisions and countries that were formed, did the Arabs disagree and have a problem with the only one that had to do with JEWS?  Hmmmmmm?  Lemme see...The conflict has never really been about land or occupation, it's always been about Islamic hatred and intolerance if the other.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 16, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Actually, you just failed history.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Gee, all that was addressed in the video that you refuse to watch.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VelkdSKOWgI]The Arabic Hour interviews an anti-war activist, Medea Benjamin - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 17, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Why does Tinmore required by you to care about anything other than Palestinians?  Isn't he Palestinian?



???????  It APPEARS as though Coyote is suggesting it might ever be acceptable for a poster to only care about 'their' group or 'side'?  That can't be what she meant!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> And did the Palestinian _Jews_ and the Palestinian _Christians_ agree to all of this?



Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews were all opposed to a Jewish state.


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > And did the Palestinian _Jews_ and the Palestinian _Christians_ agree to all of this?
> ...



Irrelevant, even if true


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Not irrelevant. The native people are the people with the right to self determination and the right to create their own state. Denying those rights is a violation of international law.

Foreigners do not have such rights.


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

That's still irrelevant. You keep living in the past, thinking that it will change something. So maybe we should just look at the present facts:
Israel is here, Palestine isn't and everyone who has tried to destroy us have failed miserably


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> That's still irrelevant. You keep living in the past, thinking that it will change something. So maybe we should just look at the present facts:
> Israel is here, Palestine isn't and everyone who has tried to destroy us have failed miserably



Israel is the military superpower in the region.

But the Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. These are the cards that the Palestinians have been playing lately with good success.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore,

Where does it say that?



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(OBSERVATION)*

The Jewish immigration was invited and encouraged by the Senior Arab leadership, and later, by the Allied Powers.

They have as much the right to self-determination as anyone else.  The Charter says: "self-determination of peoples."  The word "foreigners" is not used once in the entire Charter.

The Jewish had the right and they exercised it.  The Arab/Palestinian had the right and rejected it; turning hostile.

For the last 65+years, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian has attempted to deny the Jewish right to self-determination through the use of force _(as demonstrated through several wars, a couple armed insurrections, and the Hamas Charter)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> ...





> The Arab/Palestinian had the right and rejected it;...



The Palestinians declared statehood in 1948. What rejection are you talking about?


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...



Palestine became a state in 1948 ? Is that what you're saying ?


----------



## dblack (Jun 17, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?



Don't care


> 2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?



None of my business.



> 3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?



Don't know.



> 4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.



ditto.



> 5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?



No idea.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



I believe that was a declaration of independence after the British left Palestine.


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

Ok, but they didn't become a recognized state in 1948 even if they did declare independence (which I doubt since they rejected the 1947 partition plan)

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they declared independence in 1948, then why do it again in 1988 ?

Read the first sentence of that link


----------



## Roudy (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> ...


Tinmore is thinking of his beloved Nazi Mufti and his henchmen. 

Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage.


----------



## Roudy (Jun 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Have you been reading mythology lately?  LOL


----------



## Roudy (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> Ok, but they didn't become a recognized state in 1948 even if they did declare independence (which I doubt since they rejected the 1947 partition plan)
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


There was no "Arab Palestinians" back then. All the attacks against the newly formed state of Israel were to destroy it, and divide the spoils between themselves. It was never over creating this mythical Palestine. If so, Jordan and Egypt controlled West Bank and Gaza for 20 years from 48 to 67, why didn't anybody speak of a Palestine back then. Because the Arabs themselves know this whole thing is a hoax. 

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".

- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -


"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".

- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader *Yassir Arafat* -


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 17, 2013)

PFT thinks the Jews are "foreigners" in Israel.  And yet, countless pieces of archaeological evidence demonstrate that a Jewish nation existed there long before the word "Palestine" existed.  

So, what exactly does PFT not believe in?

Archaeology?
Temporal ordering?
Linear logic?

Or, perhaps, he's just decided that time began at some arbitrary point in history, and everything that happened before that date is irrelevant.

Or, perhaps, he was dropped on his head several times as a child.

Whatever the explanation, I think the best response to him is a line from a song we all know:

"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away."


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> Ok, but they didn't become a recognized state in 1948 even if they did declare independence (which I doubt since they rejected the 1947 partition plan)
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



The partition plan (resolution 181) is irrelevant. The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan and they did. The Security Council could not implement it without Palestinian approval.



> Although the Palestine People were not a party to the armistice agreements,
> this does not prejudice their right to sovereignty. It is exactly this right
> that grants the armistice agreements their full effect and significance of
> merely establishing démarcation borders. If the Palestinian fact had been
> ...


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

You ducked the other question about 'Palestinians' declaring statehood in 1988.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 17, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The Jewish immigration was invited and encouraged by the Senior Arab leadership, and later, by the Allied Powers.



Not according to an old mate of mine who served as a soldier in Palestine just after the war.
According to him, British troops would often drag immigrants back onto the ships and send them packing.
That is the story as he told it so perhaps you could post evidence to prove your claim and show that old soldier's story to be a lie.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> You ducked the other question about 'Palestinians' declaring statehood in 1988.



Good question. Perhaps you should ask them.



> For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (19181948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, *the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.*
> 
> State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 17, 2013)

Actually, in 1988, the "Palestinians" issued a "declaration," not a "reaffirmation."  Go an read it for yourself.


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > You ducked the other question about 'Palestinians' declaring statehood in 1988.
> ...



But you just said that they declared statehood in 1948 !!
So which one was it ??????
Also , from your link:

*Statehood 	not in effect *


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but they didn't become a recognized state in 1948 even if they did declare independence (which I doubt since they rejected the 1947 partition plan)
> ...



From the same link:



> If the Palestinians had entirely ceased to exist as a « people », be it because
> of an explicit or even an implicit acceptance of, or acquiescence in, « foreign
> rule » over their territory (45), a loss or extinction of their right to sovereignty
> and independence could be said to have taken place. *However, at no point in
> time during the post-Mandate era substantial proof for this can be furnished.*


----------



## toastman (Jun 17, 2013)

Statehood no in effect Tinmore.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2013)

toastman said:


> Statehood no in effect Tinmore.



That is a matter of political opinion.



> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933



Even so, a state is the product of self determination not a prerequisite.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 17, 2013)

It is clear that there are ways in which both the Israeli and Palestinian claims may be argued in a legal context.

It is also clear that none of that matters a damn.

"*Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce i*t."_ - apochryphally attributed to US President Andrew Jackson_

*Translation*: there is no court of law capable of enforcing a judgment on all of this.

*Conclusion*: there is no point in overplaying the legal card - it's not going anywhere.

Given the perpetual intransigence of both sides, the only things that signify here are (a) *possession* and (b) *strength*.

*Projected Outcome*, in light of (a) and (b) above: the Palestinians should probably begin packing and preparing to leave the region.

After which, the world can go back to sleep, or get back to dealing with _far_ more important things.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 17, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Why does Tinmore required by you to care about anything other than Palestinians?  Isn't he Palestinian?
> ...



Actually, it is.  There are few to none here that I see who care globally.  They have particularly issues or regions that they are passionate about.  There are however, posters that take particular delight in pointing out how opposing viewpoints somehow should be caring about the world.  Those particular posters however, do not exhibit that same standard themselves.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 17, 2013)

No ordinary human being is going to be able to care equally as passionately about every single group on Earth, no.

And we do seem to have an 'overload' of posters whose concern seems limited to one 'side' here, period.

But is that 'standard' acceptable ?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 18, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> No ordinary human being is going to be able to care equally as passionately about every single group on Earth, no.



Agree



> And we do seem to have an 'overload' of posters whose concern seems limited to one 'side' here, period.



Yes.  And those people encompass both the Pro-Israel and Pro-Palistinian sides.  In fact many do not even post outside IP.  But I only hear charges of lack of concern directed at Pro-Palistinian posters.



> But is that 'standard' acceptable ?



In theory .

But in reality - we have no idea what other posters do outside of this messageboard - none.  We don't know what charities they support, what organizations they are involved in, what actions they are engaging in.  In fact, I bet we'd be surprised at how false some of our assumptions are - I know I've been surprised.

All we have are assumptions that because they hold strong views on the IP situation and consistently post there, they don't care about anything else.

The irony here is that the one's who levy those accusations do not themselves post much about other situations outside of IP.


----------



## toastman (Jun 18, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Statehood no in effect Tinmore.
> ...



It is not a matter of opinion. Your link says it as clear as day !

Statehood: NOT IN EFFECT

Get over it


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2013)

toastman said:


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



"A state" is not the defining factor. It is the right to sovereignty.



> If the Palestinians had entirely ceased to exist as a « people », be it because
> of an explicit or even an implicit acceptance of, or acquiescence in, « foreign
> rule » over their territory (45), a loss or extinction of their right to sovereignty
> and independence could be said to have taken place. *However, at no point in
> ...



At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.


----------



## toastman (Jun 18, 2013)

There is no "State" of Palestine at this moment in time. I can't make it any clearer for you.

Spanish:
No hay ningún 'estado' de Palestina en este momento en el tiempo

French:
Il n'y a aucun « état » de la Palestine à cet instant

Hebrew:
&#1488;&#1497;&#1503; "&#1502;&#1491;&#1497;&#1504;&#1492;" &#1513;&#1500; &#1508;&#1500;&#1505;&#1496;&#1497;&#1503; &#1489;&#1512;&#1490;&#1506; &#1494;&#1492;

German:
Es gibt keinen &#8222;Zustand&#8220; von Palästina in diesem Moment in der Zeit

Greek:
&#916;&#949;&#957; &#965;&#960;&#940;&#961;&#967;&#949;&#953; "&#956;&#941;&#955;&#959;&#962;" &#964;&#951;&#962; &#928;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#943;&#957;&#951;&#962; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#942; &#964;&#951; &#963;&#964;&#953;&#947;&#956;&#942;


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 18, 2013)

toastman said:


> There is no "State" of Palestine at this moment in time. I can't make it any clearer for you.
> 
> Spanish:
> No hay ningún 'estado' de Palestina en este momento en el tiempo
> ...



It doesn't matter in any language.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 19, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.



Hmmmm....

At no time have the Jews relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.

Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > At no time have the Palestinians relinquished their right to sovereignty and that right cannot be taken by military force.
> ...



The right to sovereignty belongs to the natives.

Israel was created by foreigners.


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 19, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was created by foreigners.


----------



## toastman (Jun 19, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure Rocco threw that statement in the garbage for you . Where did you ever see the word foreigners ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israel was created by foreigners.



Israel is the project of the foreign World Zionist Organization. Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declation of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants. They were all foreigners.


----------



## toastman (Jun 19, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Weather that's true or not, it makes no difference whatsoever. Israel was created in 1948 and still exists today, and will continue to exist. 
You can, as you always say, grasp at straws, but it changes nada !


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 19, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


In the end, Tinmore, what is all this railing against history going to accomplish in the scheme of things? What do you predict the end results will be?


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 19, 2013)

Tinny and his pals are living in the land of _*Coulda-Shoulda-Woulda*_ instead of the _*Reality*_ that the rest of us are enjoying.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 19, 2013)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...



What history am I railing against?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 19, 2013)

Earth's history.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> Earth's history.



Like what?


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> HistoryBefore67 said:
> 
> 
> > Earth's history.
> ...



Well...you see... our whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly fourteen billion years ago, expansion started...wait!  The Earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool, Neanderthals developed tools, we built a wall, we built the pyramids.  Math, science, history... unraveling the mystery, that all started with the Big Bang.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore, toastman, HistoryBefore67, _et al,_

First, let me say, that "zionism" is not a derogatory connotation.  

Second, we've gone over this several times before in other threads.  



toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > HistoryBefore67 said:
> ...


*(REFERENCEs LINKS)*

Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917

The Emir Faisal and Dr Chaim Weizmann Agreement, 3 JANUARY, 1919

San Remo Convention, 24 April 1920

Treaty of Sevres, Peace between the Allied & Associate Powers and Turkey, 10 August, 1920

Mandate for Palestine, 12 August, 1922

The Covenant of the League of Nations, 31 December, 1924
*(COMMENT)*

POINT #1:  There is no reference to the limitation of the right to "self-determination" with respect to "foreigners" (xenophobia being a concept near universally opposed).  In fact, the term "foreigners" is not used in the Covenant or the Charter.  _(Incidentally, the right to self-determination was not expressed in the Covenant.)_  The UN does speak, as you have pointed out, about the "non-interference" _(LINK: A/50/635/Add.2 27 February, 1996)_  However, as explained before, that terminology was with "respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes;" having nothing to do with "foreigners." The territory in question, undefined during the Ottoman Rule, and artificially defined during the period of the British Mandate, was never sovereign unto itself; being subject either to the Ottoman Empire, or the Mandatory under Article 22 of the Covenant.  It was never sovereign.  The "interference" was actually the part the Arab League played in the manipulation of the Arab Higher Committee, when in the partition plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.  _(Incidentally, the term "destiny" is not used once in the Charter.)_  The concept of respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, was based on the idea the United Nations would promote:
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.​
The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples is not defined beyond these observances.  The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was not adopted until 2007 (LINK: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)], which is not retroactively applicable to the actions taken more than a half century ago.  But even if it was, it clearly does not give a specific advantage to "Indigenous people" over "Immigrants."  They are equal.



			
				United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples said:
			
		

> Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
> 
> Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law.



The idea that there is some international law or consensus that extends the indigenous Palestinian greater rights and freedoms over the legitimate immigrant is clearly erroneous; both as a mental exercise and as humanitarian ideal.

POINT #2:  The Jewish people in the former Mandate of Palestine were not foreigners in the sense that they spontaneously arrived or invaded the Mandate.  They were invited by a succession of ruling Sultans during the Ottoman Rule _(even escorted by the Sultan's fleet in the late 1400's)_ and then, encouraged to immigrate by His Royal Highness, Emir Faisal, for the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz; in cooperation with the World Zionist Organization.  This invitation was extended by the Arab King having dominion _(before the Mandate, in 1919)_ "carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917" _(The Balfour Declaration)_.  They were not uninvited invaders to Arab Lands with sinister motives.  And again, four plus years later, the Mandate further encourage immigration.

POINT #3:  The central theme, repeated over and over again that the World Zionist Organization (WZO) is foreign, and thereby implying some illegitimate to the process of accomplishing the goal of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, is simply erroneous.  The WZO is sovereignty immaterial and non-specific _(a global organization)_.   Further more, it was the central point of contact for the Arab King _(having dominion)_ to used as a channel to coordinate the implementation of the Balfour Declaration.  However, the Jewish Agency was an instrumentality created by the Article 4 of the Mandate (LINK:  Mandate for Palestine), and required by the Mandate to be accredited by the WZO.  This development was, by name _(Jewish Agency)_ was conceived in Article 4, of the San Remo Convention a full two years before the Mandate, and to assist in the compliance with Articles of the agreement between the HRH and the WZO.   It was not some spontaneous organization that just sprung into existence as an externality. 

POINT #4:  The Palestinian, of today, inherits a legacy of flip-flops on its position.  What they advocate today is not constant with the theme they historically they have held.  The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) was immediately followed by outbreaks of violence by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Population, after plan was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States _(the real external "interference")_.  Then, the HoAP later, after a number of irrational arguments claiming various violations of the Covanent and Charter, a few failed wars, and a couple ill fated insurrections, they adhere to international legitimacy and respect General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) (as stated in Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General).  Yet, later again, when Hamas becomes a significant influence and puppet of the Iranians, they flip-flop back to claiming the illegitimacy of the Resolution.  The HoAP does not have any political consistency.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 20, 2013)

*Rocco...Iran did not create Hamas:*

"With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions but dropped the previous Egyptian rulers' harsh restrictions against Islamic activists.[8] 

"In fact, Israel for many years tolerated and at times encouraged Islamic activists and groups as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO and its dominant faction, Fatah.[8][9] 

"Among the activists benefited was Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, who had also formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya in 1973, a charity recognized by Israel in 1979. Israel allowed the organization to build mosques, clubs, schools, and a library in Gaza.[8][10]"

Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you noticed how US funding for al-Qa'ida in the 1980s and Israel's creation of Hamas serve the interests of those who get rich from war and debt today?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> POINT #1: There is no reference to the limitation of the right to "self-determination" with respect to "foreigners" (xenophobia being a concept near universally opposed).* In fact, the term "foreigners" is not used in the Covenant* or the Charter.



OK but what were the terms used by the League of Nations Covenant?



> *ARTICLE 22.*
> 
> To *those colonies and territories* which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the *well-being and development of such peoples* form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> ...



Everything I see references people who already live in their own country.

I don't see anyone mentioned who could possibly be considered foreigners.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> "..._Everything I see references people who already live in their own country. I don't see anyone mentioned who could possibly be considered foreigners._"


The Jews of British Mandate Palestine were already Residents (Citizens) of the region labeled by the British as Palestine. They were immigrant-citizens, not foreigners, yes?


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Everything I see references people who already live in their own country. I don't see anyone mentioned who could possibly be considered foreigners._"
> ...



Rocco already threw Tinmore's 'foreigner' argument in the toilet


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> *Rocco...Iran did not create Hamas:*
> 
> "With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions but dropped the previous Egyptian rulers' harsh restrictions against Islamic activists.[8]
> 
> ...



Oh... so now Israel created Hamas?

Okay.....

[backing away slowly so as not to startle the crazy person]


----------



## krych3k (Jun 20, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But they didn't "live in their own country", did they?  They were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and then British subjects.


----------



## krych3k (Jun 20, 2013)

Just ask Pinmore to define "foreigner", he can't do it.  It's not a relevant term to the issues at stake.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 20, 2013)

toastman said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Yeah, but I don't think it sank-in properly...


----------



## toastman (Jun 20, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Nothing a little draino can't take care of


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 20, 2013)

You'd have a better chance of teaching nuclear physics to a cocker spaniel.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 20, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> *You'd have a better chance of teaching nuclear physics to a cocker spaniel*.


Dear Colleague:

It was very cruel of you to tell such a joke and to make me snort a half-ounce of orange juice (no pulp) back out through my nostrils upon reading that.

I will thank you in-future to take the morning drinking habits of your colleagues into account in contemplating their safety in the context of scoring points through outrageously funny combacks.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kondor


----------



## HistoryBefore67 (Jun 20, 2013)

My bad.  Have an OJ on me!


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 20, 2013)

georgephillip,  _et al,_

A bit off-topic.



georgephillip said:


> *Rocco...Iran did not create Hamas:*


*(COMMENT)*

If you say so.  

But your assertion that Israel (Blowback or otherwise) created Hamas is erroneous.



georgephillip said:


> "In fact, Israel for many years tolerated and at times encouraged Islamic activists and groups as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO and its dominant faction, Fatah.


*(COMMENT)*

Hamas was an independent development via Sheikh Ahmad Yassin.  However, the IRACG-QF (Quds Force) has had an ongoing relationship with Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) since before the 1967 War, and has _(with few interruptions)_ been supplying weapons to HoAP during this continuous association.

In fact, one of the classic examples used as the reasoning for the Naval Blocked of the Gaza Strip is the seizure of the Palestinian freighter MV Karina A, with its 50 Tons of QF weapons bound for Hamas.



georgephillip said:


> "Among the activists benefited was Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, who had also formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya in 1973, a charity recognized by Israel in 1979. Israel allowed the organization to build mosques, clubs, schools, and a library in Gaza.[8][10]"


*(COMMENT)*

I would not use the term "blowback."  Blowback implies a consequence as a result of an active covert or clandestine program.  There has never been an "active" operation conducted by the Israelis in the start-up of Hamas.  Originally the Israelis did not oppose Hamas with any significant effort because it was not considered an HoAP involved in violence and terrorism.  Prior to the Intifada, Israel may have passively ignored Hamas activities by not hampering its funding and logistics efforts; but that is not "blowback" --- that is the Palestinian (HoAP) biting the hand that was attempting to do right by them.  This "passive" approach was neither covert or clandestine; but allowed to proceed in the open _(overt)_.  This is a case of a layman misusing technical terminology.



georgephillip said:


> Have you noticed how US funding for al-Qa'ida in the 1980s and Israel's creation of Hamas serve the interests of those who get rich from war and debt today?


*(COMMENT)*

The US never provided any support or funding for al-Qaeda _(foreign Arab combatants and Jihadist)_.  The US supported the  Mujahideen _(indigenous Afghan)_.  It may have been possible that the Mujahideen _(Afghan)_ provided some support to al-Qaeda that originally came by way of the US; but the US never intended any direct support to go beyond the indigenous Afghan.  

There are any number of people, with an anti-American agenda, or self centered intention to sensationalize _(aggrandizing themselves in the process - for personal benefit)_. 

The Israelis didn't create Hamas.  It just didn't hamper its initial start-up.  At the time, it wasn't considered a threat.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 21, 2013)

Rocco...al-Qa'ida translates as "the base", shorthand for CIA database. 

Any "support" for indigenous Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion was another response to what President Eisenhower and his staff called the "campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world." Not that Arab governments hated their rich western benefactors, but rather the Arab people hated us for imposing and sustaining those rich, corrupt elites who chose to inflict an extremist version of Islam upon their population.

Israel allowed Hamas to build mosques, clubs, schools, and libraries in Gaza for the exact same reason, as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO who saw clearly the role Israel played in the western corporate domination of Near East oil.

There are any number of Americans who reject elementary moral standards: specifically, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; if it is wrong for others it is wrong for us.

They believe their acts are justified by power.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 21, 2013)

RoccoR said:
			
		

> The idea that there is some international law or consensus that extends the indigenous Palestinian greater rights and freedoms over the* legitimate immigrant *is clearly erroneous; both as a mental exercise and as humanitarian ideal.
> 
> POINT #2: The Jewish people in the former Mandate of Palestine were not foreigners in the sense that they spontaneously arrived or invaded the Mandate.



This is the US definition but it is a basic that should apply anywhere.



> These related terms are often used in deliberately confusing and conflicting ways.  Here is a set of definitions that will help you sort out the difference.
> 
> IMMIGRANT:  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and *(3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> *
> ...


There were Jews in Palestine who had different status.

Those who had lived there forever.

Those who moved to Palestine (immigrants as defined above) to live in the holy land.
These are the Jews who are considered by the Palestinians to be legitimate Palestinian citizens. I don't think anyone can disagree with that.

Then there were Jews who were literally imported by the foreign Zionists, by the boatload, for the purpose of overthrowing Palestine and replacing it with a Jewish state. They fit the description of alien as defined above. They were considered foreigners. And since they were there to overthrow Palestine, invaders would not be an inaccurate term.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 21, 2013)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No Jew is a foreigner to Israel.  We pray for Israel 3x a day, and after every meal.  From the age of 5, we learn about Israel in Hebrew school all of our lives.  Our ancestors are buried there, and the coins, pottery and architecture tell of our history. Even during the centuries when the Turks ruled, our history there continued as Kabballah developed in the city of Sefad.  Grooms remember Jerusalem during the wedding ceremony.  There are 4 fast-days per year corresponding to Jerusalem's destruction.  All your abstract philosophy about Palestine will never drive out us "foreigners".


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 21, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 21, 2013)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The Jews are only one of the many peoples who have the right to live in Palestine.

There is no historical precedent for an exclusive Jewish state.

Of course your post sidesteps my post.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 21, 2013)

Jeremiah said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 21, 2013)

p.s. I will leave it to you, Lipush, to interpret that one for "George" in case he is "Curious"...


Smiling while typing........

J.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 21, 2013)

georgephillip;  _et al,_

George!  Where do you get this stuff?



georgephillip said:


> Rocco...al-Qa'ida translates as "the base", shorthand for CIA database.


*(COMMENT)*

The name, "al-Qaeda" (The Base), refers to the foundation upon which the belief is built.  

Honestly, it has no association to a post, camp or station of the CIA; or any facility whatsoever.



georgephillip said:


> Any "support" for indigenous Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion was another response to what President Eisenhower and his staff called the "campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world." Not that Arab governments hated their rich western benefactors, but rather the Arab people hated us for imposing and sustaining those rich, corrupt elites who chose to inflict an extremist version of Islam upon their population.


*(COMMENT)*

The Afghan are not Arab.  They are a mix heritage of Irano-Afghan and Eurasian _(mixed Caucasian/Asian)_.  Not (repeat) not Arab.   _(I've been there.)_

The US support was rendered to halt Soviet Aggression, and not a campaign of any sort directed towards the Arab.

I would not presume to speak on behalf of General Eisenhower, but I doubt very much that he even had Afghanistan on his radar as either the Supreme Allied Commander, or as POTUS.  I do know that General Einsenhower knew the difference between Arabs and Afghanis.



georgephillip said:


> Israel allowed Hamas to build mosques, clubs, schools, and libraries in Gaza for the exact same reason, as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO who saw clearly the role Israel played in the western corporate domination of Near East oil.


*(COMMENT)*

The discovery of the Leviathan Gas & Oil Field, Mediterranean Sea _(vicinity of Lebanon, Israel, Gaza Strip)_ was made in 2010, base on the region survey pursued by a number of exploration teams during the period 2002-2006.  The center of the 32,000 sq mi discovery is located approximately 80 miles west of Haifa, at a depth of 5,400 feet of water in the Levantine Basin.  

The Hamas  al-Qassam Brigades formed in 1992, making Hamas an very well organized terrorist activity a decade before the surveys even began, and nearly two decades before the discovery.

There is no relationship between the start-up period for Hamas, and the initial security assessment of Hamas as a threat -- with the -- gas and oil discoveries in the basin.  Nor was there then, or now, a relationship between corporate exploration and exploitation of the find, relative to Hamas or its activities. 



georgephillip said:


> There are any number of Americans who reject elementary moral standards: specifically, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; if it is wrong for others it is wrong for us.
> 
> They believe their acts are justified by power.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't know about that. There is an argument to be made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 21, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Rocco...Iran did not create Hamas:*
> ...


Why aren't you backing away from the "*enormous, stupid, mistake*..." of creeping annexation?

"Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an 'enormous, stupid mistake' made 30 years ago.

"'Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation,' says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. 

"Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

"Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. 

"Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with 'Yassins,' primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric."

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ.com


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 21, 2013)

*"The name comes from the Arabic noun q&#257;'idah*, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.[65]

"Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:

"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.[66]

"It has been argued that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Benevolence International Foundation prove that the name was not simply adopted by the mujahid movement and that a group called al-Qaeda was established in August 1988. 

"Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group, and contain the term 'al-Qaeda'".[67]

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as 'the database', and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians.[68] 

"In April 2002, the group assumed the name Qa'idat al-Jihad, which means 'the base of Jihad'". 

"According to Diaa Rashwan, this was 'apparently as a result of the merger of the overseas branch of Egypt's al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamist Jihad, or EIJ) group, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, with the groups Bin Laden brought under his control after his return to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s.'"[69]

Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 21, 2013)

georgephillip,  *et al,*

Yes, yes.



georgephillip said:


> *"The name comes from the Arabic noun q&#257;'idah*, which means foundation or basis, and can also refer to a military base. The initial al- is the Arabic definite article the, hence the base.[65]
> 
> "Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
> 
> Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the name is very old.  If you watch the interview of Osama bin Laden (ObL), you will see him mention the name "Abu Ubaidah Al Panshiri (AaP) (Egyptian: 1950 - 1996 Lake Victoria Incident);" from which the original name of al-Qaeda is derivative.  In watching the interview, advance to 3:40 and you will see the reference .

[ame="http://youtu.be/WJImrztINp0"]Interview of Osama bin Laden by Tayseer Allouni with English Subtitles Part 4/6[/ame]

AaP was to become the second most powerful man in al-Qaeda.  But in the beginning of the anti-Russian Resistance, AaP fought on the side of the United Islamic Front (UIF) _(AKA: The Northern Alliance)_ and was probably responsible for the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud (AKA: UIF Leader  Lion of Panjshir), killed by al-Qaeda.  No one really knows what the term meant when AaP coined the name "al-Qaeda" in August 1988 at the very first meeting of al-Qaeda.  At that time, what we do know is how Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (MMS)(Co-founder of al-Qaeda) established a _Majlis al-Shura_ component with al-Qaeda _(religious body for the caliphate)_ which he used to purchase training camps, guesthouses, and warehouses in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The name al-Qaeda was not a single base name, but a name that MMS used to articulate the entire network of his managed assets.  It is believed that the original _Majlis al-Shura (as a group)_ approved the working name "al-Qaeda" proposed by AaP. 

But for sure, it had nothing to do with the US or the CIA.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip,  *et al,*
> 
> Yes, yes.
> 
> ...


In the exact same  way the CIA or the US had nothing to do with

"Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989..."?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 22, 2013)

georgephillip,  *et al,*

I already said, the US provided support to the Mujahideen.



georgephillip said:


> In the exact same  way the CIA or the US had nothing to do with
> 
> "Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989..."?


*(COMMENT)*

This is no revelation; and I didn't say the US didn't support the Mujahideen.  When I retired in '89; this was on the nightly news.

But the Mujahideen and al-Qaeda are two different elements.  The al-Qaeda was then and is now, still parasitic in many operations.

Now, back to the topic?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 22, 2013)

RoccoR said:


> georgephillip,  *et al,*
> 
> I already said, the US provided support to the Mujahideen.
> 
> ...


I've lost track, Rocco.
What topic was that?


----------



## toastman (Jun 22, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip,  *et al,*
> ...



Read the OP


----------



## Sweet_Caroline (Jun 22, 2013)

Jeremiah said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 22, 2013)

It is beautiful, SweetCaroline.  I love the History of the Jews better than other history on earth.  It is so rich and full!  The battles, the love stories, the 4,000 yr old history of Israel and her people.  It is just mind blowing, even your ancient language.  Intact. Everything.  Perfect.  Such a beautiful story.  G-d bless Israel and her people!  

- Jeremiah


----------



## Osomir (Jun 22, 2013)

HistoryBefore67 said:


> This is directed primarily to the anti-Israel/pro-"Palestinian" posters...
> 
> 1.  Do you believe that there should be a Jewish State of Israel?



I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and that Jewish peoples should have a right to live in it. I don't particularly care for the "Jewish" qualifier here though. I generally disagree with any country set-up that places one religion or ethnic groups above all others. 



> 2.  The Old City of Jerusalem should be under (a) Israeli control; (b) Jordanian control; (c) Palestinian control; or (d) International control?



I tend to feel that it should either be split (Israel west Jerusalem, Palestine east Jerusalem). Or administered as an international city.



> 3.  Do you believe that a viable "2 state solution" can include a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel?



I treat the Right of Return as a separate issue from the two state solution. I know it is often intertwined in two state dialogue, but it really doesn't have much to do with larger item issues such as border discussions and settlement expansion. 

overall, I'm in favor of a limited right of return for family reunification purposes with compensation for the property confiscated under the emergency land laws and absenty landowner laws. 



> 4.  Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel constitutes (a) terrorist activity, or (b) legitimate resistence.



Indiscriminate attacks against large population clusters and attacks on civilians are not justifiable and such actions by the Al Qassam Brigade constitute acts of terror. 



> 5.  Do you believe that the majority of those who consider themselves "Palestinians" support a "two-state solution" resulting in a peaceful coexistence with a Jewish State of Israel?



Absolutely, public polling data has supported this time and again, not only the desire for a two state solution, but the desire for reconciliation with Israel as well.


----------

